Miscellaneous
This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan: The BC Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by Teal Cedar extending an injection against people attempting to physically prevent the company from logging.The original interim injunction was not renewed by a judge because of concerns with respect to how the RCMP was enforcing the injunction and the fact that the conduct of the people attempting to physically prevent logging also constituted criminal offences that could be prosecuted without an injunction. In allowing the appeal, the BC Court of Appeal held that the fact conduct may also constitute a criminal offence is not a reason to deny an injunction application. The reason for this conclusion was that someone who is applying for an injunction to prevent unlawful conduct does not have control over whether the police or provincial Attorney General will exercise their discretion to arrest and prosecute.The court pointed out that, in the past, the BC Attorney General adopted a policy not to prosecute people who were unlawfully obstructing logging. The availability of an injunction permits a remedy that is not subject to political or other considerations. Injunctions also permit more specific prohibitions, such as exclusion zones, that are not available pursuant to the criminal law except in the form of release conditions for people already charged with a criminal offence.With respect to concern over the conduct of the RCMP when enforcing the injunction, the decision makes clear that the RCMP and the court are separate entities. Issues with respect to RCMP conduct can be raised while defending a charge of criminal contempt and are not a basis for denying an injunction. Finally, the BC Court of Appeal made clear that courts do not determine if the public policy with respect to logging is appropriate and that the protesters who were attempting to impose their will by force were abandoning the democratic process:[76] It is not tenable in a democracy for a group to abandon the democratic process and impose their will on others by force. In a complex, pluralistic society, the democratically-elected government makes laws, and the courts interpret and uphold them. Barring constitutional overreach, the laws and decisions flowing from them are to be respected and enforced.Also, on the show, a dispute between a strata corporation and a property developer concerning payment for a shared electric car is discussed. As a proposed amenity for the building, a shared electric BMW was offered. To facilitate this the property developer leased the car and had the strata corporation take over responsibility for the lease. At the time this was arranged the developer also controlled the strata corporation as the units in the building hadn’t been sold yet. Once the new owners of the units took over management of the strata corporation they objected to having to pay for the car. They raised various unsuccessful arguments about not having been told about the arrangement, and not having voted on it. Ultimately, the strata corporation was ordered to pay the developer for the costs associated with terminating the lease for the BMW. Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.