Supreme Court

5>^ 6tV -^2. <?cz-CV 03864 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES IN THE MATTER OF: ROYAL OAK MINES INC. - and -CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF SMELTER AND ALLIED WORKERS LOCAL NO.4, AND BILL SCHRAM, HARRY SEETON, BOB KOSTA, RICK CASSIDY, AL SHEARING, AND ROBIN JANZ. 1. STEVE CHRISTENSEN 2. BRIAN DROVER

Transcript of the Reasons for Judgment and Sentence delivered by the Honourable Mr. Justice J. E. Richard, sitting at Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories, on December 22, A.D. 1992.

APPEARANCES; MR. S. DUKE On behalf of the Applicant MR. A. MARSHALL On behalf of the Respondent MR. D. MILLER On behalf of the Attorney General OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

1 THE COURT: The present application by Royal Oak 2 Mines for an order finding each of Steve Christensen 3 and Brian Drover to be in contempt of court arises 4 from an incident which occurred at the minesite on the 5 evening of May 26, which was just three days after the 6 commencement of the strike. It was a serious incident 7 involving injuries to persons on both sides of the 8 labour dispute, and also extensive property damage, 9 It was one of the most serious of the numerous 10 incidents that have been the subject matter of these 11 many contempt hearings held over the past several 12 months. It is the very type of incident that the 13 court's injunction order was designed to prevent from 14 occurring. If the court's injunction order had been 15 obeyed, this incident would not have occurred. 16 As serious as the incident was, it had the 17 potential to become a much uglier and much more 18 violent situation. It was only because of the actions 19 of people like David Power and Brian Drover that the 20 situation did not become any worse than it did, 21 I am satisfied that this incident was 22 precipitated by the anger felt by Steve Christensen 2 3 and others when they learned of the manner in which 2 4 one of the company's supply trucks had driven onto the 25 property past some of the striking miners and through 26 the Gate #4, Any anger felt by Mr. Christensen did 27 not justify his conduct in entering onto the mine OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

1 property in the manner that he did, or his conduct 2 once he was on the mine property, 3 I have heard conflicting evidence on this hearing 4 as to some of the events which occurred while 5 Mr. Christensen was on the mine property. Upon a 6 consideration of all of the evidence, I'm of the view 7 that Mr, Christensen has coloured his testimony both 8 by way of exaggerating some of the details and 9 circumstances and by way of attempting to minimize the 10 extent of his unlawful conduct. 11 Mr, Christensen entered the mine property, and 12 while on the mine property he drove his truck in a 13 careless and reckless manner. He had no lawful reason 14 for being on the mine property at that time, nor for 15 driving his truck in the manner that he did. At one 16 point in time the security officers, who were 17 investigating Mr. Christensen's unauthorized presence 18 on the mine property, parked a company vehicle across 19 the road to block Mr. Christensen's path. It is not 20 for me to determine on this application whether those 21 security officers made a wise decision in doing so. 22 When Mr. Christensen was confronted with this vehicle 23 blocking his path, I am satisfied that he deliberately 24 drove his vehicle into the parked company vehicle 25 twice knowing that there were occupants in that 26 vehicle and endangering their safety, I am satisfied 27 that he drove into the stationary vehicle a third time OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

1 when it was unoccupied in his efforts to drive around 2 it. 3 As Mr, Christensen then drove away he was pursued 4 by another company vehicle driven by a security 5 officer. In the course of this chase and 6 confrontation Mr. Christensen's brother, Bradley 7 Christensen, who was on the road, was struck by the 8 company vehicle driven by the security officer and 9 injured. Although Mr. Christensen's conduct was not 10 the sole cause of his brother's injuries, his conduct 11 was certainly a major contributing cause of it. In 12 other words, if Mr, Christensen had not behaved as 13 irresponsibly as he did, his brother would never have 14 been hit by any vehicle; violence begets violence. 15 At the beginning of the strike the court, in an 16 effort to avoid violent confrontation between the two 17 sides, had restricted the type of activity that could 18 occur at the picket line. Mr. Christensen was well 19 aware that he was not permitted by the court order to 20 enter onto the mine property and confront 21 Mr. Weatherby, the driver of the supply truck. He was 22 well aware that he was not permitted by the terms of 23 the court order to ram into vehicles which were in his 24 way. Notwithstanding this, he deliberately and 25 defiantly breached the court's injunction order in 26 acting as he did. According to Mr. Christensen, his 27 actions were justified by the conduct of Mr, Weatherby OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

1 and by the atitude of the security officers. That 2 assertion is about as logical as it would be to state 3 that the security officers would be justified in 4 running over his vehicle with a two-ton truck because 5 of what he had done to the company vehicle. 6 There is one aspect of Mr, Christensen's 7 testimony that I do not doubt, and that is that he was 8 acting out of anger and frustration. As he himself 9 stated, there were a lot of angry and uptight people 10 on both sides on this occasion. This was only the 11 third day of the strike, it was a new experience for 12 Mr. Christensen, and he was angry that someone was 13 taking his job. People like Mr, Christensen have to 14 learn to control their anger. His angry outburst on 15 this occasion led to violence on the picket line and 16 did nothing to assist the grievances of he and his 17 fellow strikers. 18 On the standard of proof beyond a reasonable 19 doubt, I find that Mr. Christensen's conduct on this 20 occasion constituted a serious breach of the court's 21 injunction order. His conduct constitutes a "watching 22 and besetting at the minesite" contrary to the terms 2 3 of the court's order. But it was much more serious 24 than simply watching and besetting. His conduct 25 amounts to a criminal contempt of court inasmuch as 26 his defiance of the court order was done in a very 27 deliberate and a very public way knowing that this OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

1 public disobedience would tend to depreciate the 2 respect and authority of the court, 3 I wish to turn now briefly to the company's 4 application for a finding of contempt as against Brian 5 Drover. Dave Power in his testimony stated that after 6 Bradley Christensen was struck by the company vehicle 7 and was being attended to by his brother and another 8 person, he, that is David Power, noticed that Brian 9 Drover and a large group of other persons were coming 10 on to the mine property from the direction of Gate #4, 11 and Mr. Power was concerned that there was going to be 12 a confrontation between this group of strikers and the 13 security people. Mr. Power requested or instructed 14 the security people to retreat, and they did. Mr. 15 Power went to Mr, Drover, who he knew, and requested 16 his assistance in avoiding the confrontation. 17 Mr. Power says that at his request Mr, Drover went to 18 speak to the approaching group of strikers, and it 19 appears he convinced them to retreat from the mine 2 0 property, 21 Mr. Drover in his own testimony indicated that 22 the only reason he came onto the mine property is that 2 3 he had witnessed the person being struck by a company 24 vehicle, and he, being trained in first aid, was going 25 to render assistance to the injured party, I accept 26 Mr, Drover's evidence on this point, and also that he 27 agreed to help defuse the situation by trying to get OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

1 the strikers to retreat from the property. 2 In these circumstances where Mr. Drover's 3 behaviour was such as to defuse the situation rather 4 than aggravate it, I find that he was not acting in 5 breach of the court's injunction order. He did enter 6 onto the mine property, but I accept that he had a 7 reasonable excuse for doing so. The application as 8 against Brian Drover is dismissed. 9 (AT WHICH TIME SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BY COUNSEL) 10 THE COURT: Mr. Christensen has been found guilty 11 of contempt of court by reason of his deliberate 12 defiance of an injunction order issued by this Court, 13 That injunction order restricted his activities at the 14 minesite to picketing at one of the mine entrances in 15 order to communicate or obtain information. Instead 16 Mr, Christensen entered the mine property in his 17 vehicle and provoked a violent confrontation with the 18 company's security personnel, a confrontation which 19 caused damage to company vehicles, damage to 20 Mr, Christensen's vehicle, and injuries to 21 Mr. Christensen's own brother and to a security 22 officer. I am not going to repeat the other details 23 of this incident other than to repeat once again that 24 his breach of the court order led to a very serious 25 incident. 26 The court's injunction order was not made just 27 for the sake of making an order. It was made for the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

1 specific purpose of avoiding violence at the minesite. 2 No matter how angry or frustrated Mr, Christensen is 3 or was, he is not free to disobey an order of the 4 court. If court orders are not respected, we will 5 have uncontrolled violence and anarchy in our 6 community. 7 When punishing someone for contempt of court, the 8 Court's primary concern is not punishment for the sake 9 of punishment. The Court's primary concern is 10 deterrence, that is simply to ensure that the court's 11 order is obeyed in the future by Mr. Christensen and 12 by everyone else. 13 In imposing sentence in this case I am taking 14 into consideration the seriousness of the incident 15 that resulted from Mr. Christensen's breach. I am 16 also taking into consideration the brief details that 17 I have been provided with as to Mr, Christensen's 18 background. I take it that he is otherwise a 19 law-abiding citizen who maintains steady employment 20 and who supports his family. I am also taking into 21 consideration the sentences that the Court has imposed 22 on others who have acted in breach of the court's 23 injunction order, I also wish to state clearly that 24 the sanction that is being imposed is not being 2 5 imposed because Mr. Christensen breached the Criminal 2 6 Code or any other statutes, but simply because he 27 disobeyed an order of this Court. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

1 Taking all of these things into consideration, I 2 impose a sentence of 2 0 days imprisonment, however, 3 exercising the power which I have at law in contempt 4 proceedings, I am going to suspend that sentence for a 5 period of six months. The result of that, 6 Mr. Christensen, is that you will be free to go today, 7 but you will be bound by the order of this court to 8 keep the peace and to obey all court orders, and to 9 come back before this Court when you are required to 10 do so within the next six months. Now if you keep the 11 peace during that time period and obey all court 12 orders, your sentence of 20 days imprisonment will be 13 discharged without further order of this Court, On 14 the other hand, if you breach the peace in any way 15 during the next six months, you will be brought back 16 before this court for judgment; and if any breach is 17 proven, you will be committed to jail for 20 days. Do 18 you understand all of this Mr. Christensen? 19 MR. CHRISTENSEN: Yes, Your Honour, 20 THE COURT: I am going to ask Mr. Miller, who is 21 here on behalf of the attorney general, to prepare a 22 formal court order reflecting what I have just said 2 3 and to arrange for a copy of the order to be served on 24 you in due course. But the order will take effect 25 immediately, and Mr. Christensen will be free to leave 2 6 today. 27 Now Mr. Christensen, I heard you clearly when you OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

I I

1 testified that you were well aware that the strike is 2 having just a terrible impact on this community. I 3 hope that you will do your part to ensure that it 4 won't be necessary for the Court to see you back here 5 again. 6 (AT WHICH TIME THIS MATTER WAS ADJOURNED) 7 8 Certified a correct transcript. 9 10 i^#l 11 Loretta Mott Court Reporter 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27