Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Civil procedure - Contempt of court - Injunctions - Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Sentence - Is it possible for a party who has been found in contempt on the basis of a wilful and deliberate breach of a court order to mitigate the sanction for such contempt by collaterally attacking the order that he or she deliberately breached? - Do political protest motives justify the deliberate obstruction of private property and public rights of way, and should such motives be taken into account in mitigation of sentences imposed as a result of the breach of court orders? - Did the Court of Appeal’s application of the principles in R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688, effectively overrule jurisprudence to the effect that aboriginal rights exist within the Canadian legal system and not outside of it?

The Applicant, Frontenac Ventures Corporation, is a private uranium exploration company that holds a mining lease, numerous mining claims and several agreements with private property owners to conduct mining exploration in Frontenac County, Ontario. Frontenac’s lease, mining claims and agreements are all within an area of land subject to an Algonquin land claim (“the land”). The Respondent, Ardoch Algonquin First Nation (“AAFN”), is a First Nation community located in the Ottawa valley in eastern Ontario. The Respondent, Paula Sherman, is a co-chief of the AAFN, and the Respondent, Robert Lovelace, is a member of the AAFN. In early 2007, these Respondents became aware of mineral claims of the Applicant on the land. In June 2007, the Respondent AAFN and other aboriginal and non-aboriginal community groups engaged in a peaceful protest and blockade, preventing the Applicant from accessing the exploration land. In July 2007, the Applicant commenced an action against the Respondents and others, seeking an injunction to end the blockade and $77 million in compensation. In August 2007, an interim injunction was granted in favour of the Applicant. These Respondents failed to comply with the order, which led to the Applicant’s motion for an interlocutory injunction, which was also granted. Again, these Respondents did not comply with the court order. The Applicant subsequently brought a contempt motion, which was adjourned following agreement by the parties to enter into a mediation in an attempt to resolve the dispute. The mediation eventually failed and the contempt motion was revived. Mr. Lovelace, Ms. Sherman and the AAFN admitted contempt. Mr. Lovelace and Ms. Sherman were sentenced to six months each in jail and fined $25,000 and $15,000, respectively. The AAFN was fined $10,000. The appeal against the sentences was allowed.