Prosecutors asked to consider criminal contempt charges for Coastal GasLink protesters

A B.C. Supreme Court judge has asked prosecutors to consider criminal contempt charges against more than two dozen people accused of defying a court order that prevents them from interfering with the construction of a controversial pipeline.

Justice Marguerite Church invited the B.C. Prosecution Service on Wednesday to bring charges against 27 individuals arrested last fall in a series of blockades and actions opposing the Coastal GasLink pipeline, which would transport natural gas across northern B.C.

The invitation came at the request of the company's lawyer, who argued the protesters wilfully breached an injunction Church issued in 2019, knowing their defiance would receive widespread public attention.

"It is apparent from the evidence before me that the protest actions have escalated since 2019, and there is evidence, which if accepted, may support a finding of criminal contempt," Church said.

"It is clear from the evidence before me that there is an important public interest in fostering a respect for the rule of law. The conduct alleged is defiant of the rule of law, and such conduct depreciates the authority of the court."

If completed, the 670-kilometre pipeline would run from near Dawson Creek in the east to Kitimat on the Pacific coast.

The project has been the subject of ongoing protest in recent years backing the objections of Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs, who say Coastal GasLink does not have consent to cross their territory.

The company has signed benefit agreements with 20 band councils along the route of the project. But the hereditary leadership says band councils do not have authority over land beyond reserve boundaries.

Wednesday's court proceedings mark the third time Church has invited the prosecution service on behalf of B.C.'s Attorney General to consider criminal contempt charges against pipeline protesters.

On both previous occasions — in 2019 and 2020 — prosecutors declined to pursue criminal charges.

The court proceedings highlight the difference between criminal and civil contempt charges. 

Coastal GasLink lawyer Kevin O'Callaghan said both civil and contempt charges require "proof of intentional act or omission in breach of a clear order."

"The distinction is the additional public defiance aspect in criminal contempt,"  O'Callaghan said.

"We say that the acts of these individuals ... are displays of public defiance of an injunction order, and therefore criminal contempt."