Health Authority v. Jongerden, (2015) 367 B.C.A.C. 190 (CA)

Judge:Donald, D. Smith and Groberman, JJ.A.
Court:Court of Appeal of British Columbia
Case Date:February 12, 2015
Jurisdiction:British Columbia
Citations:(2015), 367 B.C.A.C. 190 (CA);2015 BCCA 72
 
FREE EXCERPT

Health Authority v. Jongerden (2015), 367 B.C.A.C. 190 (CA);

    631 W.A.C. 190

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.013

Fraser Health Authority (respondent/applicant) v. Michael Schmidt (appellant/respondent)

(CA040965; 2015 BCCA 72)

Indexed As: Fraser Health Authority v. Jongerden et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Donald, D. Smith and Groberman, JJ.A.

February 12, 2015.

Summary:

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 986, found Schmidt guilty of civil contempt of court for packaging and distributing raw milk for human consumption, contrary to the terms of a permanent injunction granted in 2010. Schmidt had contended that the raw milk was being packaged and distributed for cosmetic purposes only. The trial judge rejected that contention. Schmidt appealed, alleging the following errors: the trial judge interpreted the injunction too broadly; the trial judge relied on inadmissible hearsay to ground his finding of contempt; the judge failed to apply the standard of reasonable doubt to Schmidt's evidence and to the circumstantial case; there were reversals of the onus of proof by the trial judge, or, alternatively, findings of fact that were unsupported by evidence; and the trial judge failed to consider the evidence as a whole, misapprehended the evidence, or made palpable and overriding errors of fact.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Contempt - Topic 42

Elements of contempt - Mens rea - See paragraphs 3 to 8.

Contempt - Topic 683

What constitutes contempt - Judgments and orders - Requirement of clear and unambiguous order - See paragraphs 3 to 8.

Contempt - Topic 3024

Persons liable - Particular matters - Injunctions - Violation of - See paragraphs 3 to 8.

Contempt - Topic 5082

Practice - Evidence and proof - Standard of proof - See paragraphs 14 to 16.

Contempt - Topic 5083

Practice - Evidence and proof - Burden of proof - See paragraphs 17 to 26.

Contempt - Topic 5087

Practice - Evidence and proof - Hearsay evidence - See paragraphs 9 to 13.

Cases Noticed:

Hama v. Werbes (2000), 139 B.C.A.C. 290; 227 W.A.C. 290; 2000 BCCA 367, refd to. [para. 4].

Gurtins v. Panton-Goyert et al. (2008), 254 B.C.A.C. 102; 426 W.A.C. 102; 2008 BCCA 196, refd to. [para. 4].

F.H. v. McDougall, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 41; 380 N.R. 82; 260 B.C.A.C. 74; 439 W.A.C. 74; 2008 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 15].

Bhatnager v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 217; 111 N.R. 185, refd to. [para. 15].

Vidéotron ltée et Premier Choix: TVEC Inc. v. Industries Microlec produits électroniques Inc. et autres, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 1065; 141 N.R. 281; 50 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 15].

Ahmed v. Vancouver (City) et al. (2012), 323 B.C.A.C. 109; 550 W.A.C. 109; 2012 BCCA 261, refd to. [para. 15].

L.S. v. G.S. (2014), 360 B.C.A.C. 239; 617 W.A.C. 239; 2014 BCCA 334, refd to. [para. 15].

Palleson-Stallan v. Palleson-Stallan, [2014] B.C.A.C. Uned. 81; 2014 BCCA 474, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. C.W.H. (1991), 3 B.C.A.C. 205; 7 W.A.C. 205; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 146 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Morrissey (R.J.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Swales (M.G.) (2014), 360 B.C.A.C. 291; 617 W.A.C. 291; 2014 BCCA 350, refd to. [para. 24].

Counsel:

J.B. Gratl, for the appellant;

S.L. Beach, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 12, 2015, at Vancouver, B.C., before Donald, D. Smith and Groberman, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered orally by Groberman, J.A., on the same date.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP