Supreme Court

^o ^""M ^ 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. KURT LEHNIGER

Transcript of the Reasons for Judgment delivered by the Honourable Mr. Justice J. E. Richard, sitting at Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories, on December 21, 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: Mr. Lehniger is one of the members of 2 the CASAW union who were on lawful strike at the Giant 3 minesite. The company alleges that on October 27th of 4 this year Mr. Lehniger breached the Court's injunction 5 order in a deliberate way, and that he should be found 6 to be in contempt of court. 7 This strike commenced on May 23 of this year and 8 shortly thereafter Mr. Justice deWeerdt of this court 9 issued an injunction order with a view to stabilizing 10 a very volatile situation at the minesite. The 11 injunction order specified or restricted the type of 12 activity that the striking miners could engage in at 13 the minesite. Essentially the only type of activity 14 that is permitted is picketing, with no more than five 15 picketers at a time at a number of the mine entrances 16 in order to communicate information or obtain 17 information. All other picketing, and all other forms 18 of watching and besetting are prohibited by the court 19 order. 20 Mr. Lehniger has worked at the minesite for over 21 20 years. He is now 60 years of age. He has been 22 engaged in lawful picketing activity throughout the 23 duration of this seven-month strike. On the evening 24 of October 27 he was on picket duty at Gate #1, which 25 is the entrance to the Giant townsite. One of the 26 company security officers who was on duty near that 27 entrance noticed a taxicab drive into the townsite OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

1 with passengers, and when the taxicab was leaving the 2 mine property through the entrance at Gate #1, the 3 security officer saw Mr. Lehniger stop the taxicab and 4 speak to the driver. After the taxicab left, the 5 security officer, Carl Tettenborn, radioed to his 6 collegues his concern that the taxi driver may have 7 been threatened by Mr. Lehniger. It does appear that 8 shortly thereafter someone representing the company 9 did contact the taxi driver to inquire whether he had 10 been threatened. 11 As it turns out, Mr. Tettenborn's concern was 12 unfounded. Mr. Lehniger did not make any threat to 13 the taxi driver. Having heard the sworn testimony of 14 Mr. Lehniger and of the taxi driver, I have no 15 difficulty in finding that Mr. Lehniger did not breach 16 the Court's order when he had the discussion with the 17 taxi driver. In essence, Mr. Lehniger told the taxi 18 driver that it might be better, given the fact of the 19 strike and the state of emotions on each side, that it 20 might be better if the taxi driver dropped off his 21 passengers on the highway outside of the mine entrance 22 rather than driving them all the way into the 23 minesite. The taxi driver responded that he was just 24 doing his job. The words of Mr. Lehniger were not 25 spoken in any intimidating or threatening manner. This 2 6 is the type of communication of information that is 2 7 expressly permitted by the court order. So I find OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

1 that no breach of the court order occurred at the time 2 of the taxicab incident. 3 Unfortunately the matter did not end there. 4 Within the next hour or so Mr. Lehniger learned from 5 his collegues that at one or more of the locations on 6 the picket line that there had been a report of the 7 taxicab incident, and Mr, Lehniger was satisfied that 8 he had been accused by one of the company security 9 officers of threatening the taxi driver. Mr. Lehniger 10 was quite upset and disappointed upon learning this as 11 he considered himself to be a peaceable person and 12 that the accusation was unfounded. Mr. Lehniger then 13 got in his vehicle and drove it onto the company 14 property and approached the security officer 15 Mr. Tettenborn, and this confrontation resulted in a 16 very unfortunate incident, and it is this unfortunate 17 incident which is the reason for this court hearing. 18 I have heard different evidence characterizing 19 Mr. Lehniger's entrance onto the mine property. 20 Mr. Lehniger says he was simply going to the security 21 guard house to ascertain the identity of the person 2 2 who accused him and no more. Mr. Tettenborn indicated 23 that he had heard Mr. Lehniger say over the radio to 24 his fellow strikers that he was going in to get Mr. 2 5 Tettenborn. Mr. Tettenborn and another witness, Jim 26 Gauthier, testified that Mr. Lehniger approached the 2 7 security guard house and Mr, Tettenborn in an OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

1 aggressive fashion and not simply in the nature of a 2 fact-finding mission. 3 Upon my consideration of all of the evidence on 4 this point, I am satisfied that Mr, Lehniger 5 deliberately entered on the mine property with the 6 intention of confronting Mr. Tettenborn who he felt 7 had accused him of something that he had not done. I 8 also find that Mr. Lehniger announced to his fellow 9 strikers on the radio that he was going onto the mine 10 property for this purpose. 11 Although Mr. Lehniger's reaction might be 12 construed as a human reaction in the circumstances, 13 the fact is he had no lawful reason for being on the 14 company's property at that time, and he was clearly 15 acting outside of the activity that was permitted by 16 the court order. 17 Mr. Tettenborn, the security officer, for his 18 part, felt it necessary to arrest Mr, Lehniger for 19 trespass and for breach of the injunction order, and 20 this decision led to a physical altercation between 21 Mr. Tettenborn and Mr. Lehniger. Mr. Lehniger was 22 wrestled to the ground and handcuffed. Mr. Lehniger, 23 who has an asthmatic condition, was quite shocked at 24 this, and in the course of the struggle, he had some 25 difficulty breathing. Other strikers and other 26 security officers gathered around shortly thereafter, 27 and the police arrived, and fortunately this incident iFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS ^

I

1 did not escalate any further. 2 On this evidence I find that Mr. Lehniger's 3 conduct in driving onto the mine property and 4 confronting the security officer constituted a clear 5 breach of the court's injunction order, an order of 6 which Mr. Lehniger was well aware. I am satisfied 7 beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr, Lehniger defied or 8 disobeyed the court's order in a public way with the 9 knowledge that this public disobedience would tend to 10 depreciate the respect and authority of the court, and 11 I accordingly find him to be in criminal contempt of 12 the court. 13 The purpose of any finding of contempt of court, 14 and in imposing any punishment or sanction for 15 contempt of court is deterrence, that is, to ensure 16 the court order is obeyed in the future. The court in 17 exercising its power regarding contempt of the court 18 simply seeks to uphold the rule of law, and the 19 dignity and respect of the court. The person who 2 0 committed the contempt of the court's order in this 21 instance, which is Kurt Lehniger, strikes me as a 22 person who made a mistake on a one-time basis and is 23 not likely to again breach the court's order. Mr. 24 Lehniger strikes me as one who wishes to see peace on 25 the picket line and not violence. I am of the opinion 26 that it's not necessary to impose any particular 27 sanction against Mr. Lehniger as a result of his OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

1 action, which constituted a contempt of this Court's 2 order. The resulting arrest of Mr. Lehniger and these 3 court proceedings in my view should be sufficient in 4 themselves to bring home to Mr. Lehniger that his 5 conduct was unlawful and should not be repeated, 6 Mr, Lehniger you have been found guilty of 7 contempt of court, and I have decided that I should 8 not impose any particular penalty against you. So you 9 are free to go now, and Mr. Lehniger I hope that we 10 don't see you back here again charged with a breach of 11 the court's order. 12 (AT WHICH TIME THIS MATTER WAS ADJOURNED) 13 14 Certified a correct transcript,

15

16 17 Loretta Mott Court Reporter 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

L