Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Rainforest Flying Squad

2022 BCSC 2338 Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Rainforest Flying Squad

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Rainforest Flying Squad, 2022 BCSC 2338 Date: 20221018 Docket: S211602 Registry: Vancouver Between: Teal Cedar Products Ltd. Plaintiff And Unknown Persons operating as the "Rainforest Flying Squad", Robert Arbess (also known as Reuben Garbanzo), John Doe, Jane Doe, and Persons Unknown Defendants And British Columbia (Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development) Third Party Before: The Honourable Justice Thompson Oral Reasons for Sentence - Drew Doyle Counsel for the Crown: N. Melling A. Kaban Counsel for the Contemnor: B. Isitt Place and Date of Hearing: Nanaimo, B.C. October 18, 2022 Place and Date of Judgment: Nanaimo, B.C. October 18, 2022 [1] THE COURT: Drew Doyle has admitted criminal contempt of the April 2021 injunction order that prohibits certain obstructive activity. On 24 July 2021, nearly ten weeks after the RCMP began its Fairy Creek enforcement operation, Mr. Doyle was on a platform atop a tripod erected in the middle of a road in the injunction area. [2] The platform was approximately 12 feet off the road. If the tripod had fallen, it is admitted that Mr. Doyle was at significant risk of injury or death. It took 12 officers approximately 20 minutes to gradually lower the tripod until Mr. Doyle was safely on the back of a police vehicle parked

underneath. [3] Like so many others that I have sentenced in this case, Mr. Doyle is a man of good character. He is currently employed with a fence and deck company in Victoria. He has worked there for five years doing construction and running a crew. Before that he was an aerial technician lead hand for five years building cellphone towers in Ontario. He is 30 years old. He intends in the future to take a business program and open his own construction business. He has contributed to the community as a volunteer and this too is in common with so many others that I have sentenced. In particular, in Mr. Doyle's case, he has contributed as a volunteer with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. He is an avid hiker and camper and spends a large amount of his spare time in the forests of Vancouver Island. [4] He spoke compellingly of the reasons that he was at Fairy Creek: he is concerned about the climate crisis, he is concerned that the logging industry is destroying vital ecosystems, and he recognizes that once these old growth forests are clear cut they will never return to the same state. In his statement to the court, he indicated that, if he had it to do over again he would not go under the tripod, but he acknowledged that he still does not know what the right answer is when it comes to stopping the decimation of old growth forests and protecting these vital

ecosystems. He still feels that something needs to be done and feels let down by government. [5] The narrow issues in this case revolve around the application of the principle of parity and the other principle that I have applied in many sentencings in this action to date: the more time that passes after the injunction order was made and the police enforcement began, and the longer that the contemptuous acts persist, consideration must be given to increased penalties. See MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Brown, [1994] B.C.J. No. 268 at para. 52 (C.A.); Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC v. Mivasair, 2019 BCCA 156 at paras. 52-53. [6] The question that Mr. Doyle's case poses is where the line on the calendar ought to be drawn. In the tripod/platform cases of Milne (arrested 19 May 2021), Koutsodimos (arrested 1 June 2021), Harvey (arrested 10 June 2021), Hardy and Chen (arrested 11 June 2021), Zaviceanu (arrested 22 June 2021), and Rainville (arrested 8 July 2021), all persons of good character, each was sentenced to four days' jail. In the tripod cases of Walczak (arrested 28 July 2021), Shaw (arrested 21 August 2021), Dejong (arrested 25 August), and Wills (arrested 4 October 2021), again all persons of good character, I judged that enough time had passed since the injunction order and the beginning of enforcement that ten-day sentences were required to fulfill the principles of sentencing

for criminal contempt. [7] Mr. Kaban, for the Crown, urges a ten-day sentence. Mr. Isitt submits that a four-day sentence is appropriate. I acknowledge a degree of arbitrariness in drawing the line. My sense of it is that ten weeks after the beginning of enforcement is an appropriate time to "up the ante." By my calculation, Mr. Doyle, you made it under the wire with a couple days to spare. The sentence is four days' jail. [8] Good luck to you, sir. "Thompson J."