Supreme Court

c,o CAV ^1> o\\ CV 03864 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

IN THE MATTER OF; ROYAL OAK MINES INC. ^^^OWK^ Plaintiff - and -

MARC DANIS

Transcript of the Reasons for Judgment Delivered by The Honourable Mr. Justice M. M. de Weerdt, sitting in Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories, on Tuesday, February 2nd, A.D., 1993.

APPEARANCES; MR. S. DUKE: On Behalf of the Plaintiff MR. A. MARSHALL On Behalf of the Defendant MR. B. WEBBER: On Behalf of the Crown OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

Defendant

f

41 i

1 THE COURT: Could you let me see the injunction 2 order that's referred to in this charge? Thank you. 3 The motion before the court is in the nature of a 4 nonsuit. More specifically, it is said on behalf of 5 Mr. Danis that the breach with which he is charged 6 alleges an interference with the employees of the 7 plaintiff in connection with the entry of a bus on the 8 Giant Mine property on the date and at the place 9 charged. It is submitted on behalf of Mr. Danis that 10 the evidence does show some interference with the 11 closing of the gate, but only after the bus had 12 entered. On behalf of the applicant company, it is 13 submitted that there was interference with the 14 employees at the gate. It is conceded that this 15 occurred after the bus had entered. 16 Looking at the charge at the top of page four in 17 paragraph three of the notice of motion, it reads Marc 18 Danis breached the said injunction order by preventing 19 or attempting to prevent or interfering with the 20 employees of the plaintiff, namely Terry Byberg and 21 others in a bus entering the Giant Mine through the 22 main gate on Thursday, the 11th day of June, 1992, by 23 using force and intimidation. 24 Counsel for Mr. Danis has referred to the 25 injunction order. I take that to be the consolidated 2 6 order, Mr. Marshall, that you were referring to and we 27 can take it that that is the order mentioned in OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

4

41 II L

1 paragraph three? 2 MR. MARSHALL: We could look at the consolidated 3 order although that one wasn't in existence at the 4 time. The order that would exist at the time would be 5 the May 23rd order as amended on May 29th. 6 THE COURT: Perhaps I should look at that one then 7 instead. 8 MR, MARSHALL: That would be the one that's— 9 THE CLERK: It was amended when? 10 MR. MARSHALL: It was amended, I believe, on May 11 29th, so there is two orders that were in effect at 12 the time. 13 THE COURT: You should let me have them both then. 14 Thank you. The order pronounced on May 29th merely 15 amended the earlier order as to the number of 16 picketers. So at the time in question ten would have 17 been within the scope of what was permitted. Do 18 counsel agree on that? Mr. Duke? This is as of June 19 the 11th. Ten picketers would have been permitted? 20 MR. DUKE: That's true, My Lord. 21 THE COURT: Mr. Marshall? 22 MR. MARSHALL Yes, My Lord. 23 THE COURT: All right. So then I go back to the 24 order pronounced on May 23rd which enjoins all 25 concerned from watching, besetting, picketing or 26 attempting to do these things at or adjacent to the 27 plaintiff's premises at Giant Mine except as OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

4

I i

1 specifically stated, and that's to say picketing 2 merely to obtain or communicate information by no more 3 than five picketers, well, that was amended to ten, at 4 the main entrance to Giant Mine, all of whom are 5 either employees of the plaintiff or officials of the 6 defendant Canadian Association of Smelter and Allied 7 Workers, local number 4. And furthermore, picketing 8 merely to obtain or communicate information by no more 9 than five picketers at any other entrance. Again that 10 would be ten. So what was permitted was picketing 11 merely to obtain or communicate information by no more 12 than the designated number of picketers. 13 Here on the evidence, one can see that certainly 14 things were being done that went outside the scope of 15 that order, but what I must focus on is what is 16 charged. It may be that other things which could have 17 been charged were being done, but what is charged is 18 that Mr. Danis prevented or attempted to prevent or 19 interfered with Terry Byberg and other employees of 20 the plaintiff entering the Giant Mine through the main 21 gate. That's how I read the charge and I have not 22 been pursuaded that it should be read differently. 23 On the charge before the court, I find there is no 24 evidence on which a judgment can be entered against 25 Mr. Danis, although on the evidence heard today, I do 26 not rule out by any means other charges which might be 27 brought forward. I take it then, gentlemen, I should OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

i

1 I'

1 simply direct that the exhibits be dealt with as they 2 have been in other proceedings. Mr. Danis, you are 3 discharged. 4 THE ACCUSED: Thank you. Your Honour. 5 THE COURT: You have heard what I said. 6 THE ACCUSED: Yes, I have. 7 THE COURT: All right then. 8 9 (AT WHICH TIME THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED) 10 11 Certified Pursuant to Practice Direction #20 12 dated December 28, 1987. 13 14 Laurie Ann Young '̂ J 15 Court Reporter 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

i

(

i i