MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Greenpeace Canada et al., (1996) 79 B.C.A.C. 135 (SCC)

• Judge: Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: August 22, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1996), 79 B.C.A.C. 135 (SCC)

MacMillan Bloedel v. Greenpeace (1996), 79 B.C.A.C. 135 (SCC);

    129 W.A.C. 135

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Greenpeace Canada and Valerie Langer (appellants) v. MacMillan Bloedel Limited (respondent) and Shiela Simpson, Valerie Langer, Bonnie Glambeck, James Robinson, Gilles Blanchet, Daniel Carbotte, Marie Michajlowycz, Willie Sport, Lisa Humphreys, Dan Lewis, Carl Hinke, Mike Mullins, Chris O'Gorman, Bill Joyce, Heidi Dorosh, Marek Czuma, Tammy Chabot (aka Tammy Kinlock), Daniel Alexander Kirslake, William Robinson Cook, Henry George Adam Trott, John Jared Irwin, John Doe, Jane Doe and Persons Unknown (defendants) and The Attorney General of British Columbia (intervener)

(24437)

Indexed As: MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Greenpeace Canada et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier,

Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

August 22, 1996.

Summary:

MacMillan Bloedel brought an action to restrain protesters from blocking the roads on which it trucked its logs. It named as defendants, Valerie Langer and four other named individuals and "John Doe, Jane Doe and Persons Unknown". The relief sought was damages for trespass, nuisance, intimi­dation, interference with contractual re­lations and conspiracy, as well as injunctive relief. The British Columbia Supreme Court subsequently granted an interim injunction prohibiting the named defendants, as well as "John Doe, Jane Doe, and Persons Unknown" and "all persons having notice of the Order" from engaging in conduct which interfered with MacMillan Bloedel's oper­ations at specified locations (see 106 D.L.R.(4th) 556). Langer and Greenpeace Canada appealed from that order.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Wood, J.A., dissenting, in a decision re­ported at 50 B.C.A.C. 100; 82 W.A.C. 100, dismissed the appeal. Langer and Green­peace appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Injunctions - Topic 697

Granting an injunction - Considerations affecting grant - Private benefit versus public interest - [See Injunctions - Topic 7078 ].

Injunctions - Topic 3241

The order - Contents - General - MacMillan Bloedel brought an action to restrain protesters from blocking the roads on which it trucked its logs - It named as defendants, five individuals and "John Doe, Jane Doe and Persons Unknown" - The British Columbia Supreme Court subsequently granted an interim injunction prohibiting the named defendants, as well as "John Doe, Jane Doe, and Persons Unknown" and "all persons having notice of the Order" from engaging in conduct which interfered with MacMillan Bloedel's operations - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the inclusion in the order of a provision authorizing police to arrest and remove persons breaching the injunc­tion did no harm and may have made the order fairer - See paragraph 41.

Injunctions - Topic 4646

Operation of injunctions - Persons bound - Persons unknown - MacMillan Bloedel brought an action to restrain protesters from blocking the roads on which it trucked its logs - It named as defendants, five individuals and "John Doe, Jane Doe and Persons Unknown" - The British Columbia Supreme Court subsequently granted an interim injunction prohibiting the named defendants, as well as "John Doe, Jane Doe, and Persons Unknown" and "all persons having notice of the Order" from engaging in conduct which interfered with MacMillan Bloedel's oper­ations - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the use of the terms "John Doe, Jane Doe and Persons Unknown" in the style of cause did not invalidate the order - The use of the terms in the present action appeared to be surplusage as a person who is not a party to an action is bound to respect an order made in the action on pain of being found in contempt of court - See paragraphs 37 to 40.

Injunctions - Topic 4647

Operation of injunctions - Persons bound - Nonparties - MacMillan Bloedel brought an action to restrain protesters from blocking the roads on which it trucked its logs - It named as defendants, five individuals and "John Doe, Jane Doe and Persons Unknown" - The British Columbia Supreme Court subsequently granted an interim injunction prohibiting the named defendants, as well as "John Doe, Jane Doe, and Persons Unknown" and "all persons having notice of the Order" from engaging in conduct which interfered with MacMillan Bloedel's oper­ations - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the British Columbia Supreme Court had jurisdiction to make orders binding on persons who were not parties to the action - See paragraphs 13 to 37.

Injunctions - Topic 5904

Particular matters - General - To restrain the doing of an illegal act - [See Injunc­tions - Topic 7078 ].

Injunctions - Topic 7078

Particular matters - Violation of statute - Criminal statute - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "[t]he mere fact that conduct may be characterized as criminal does not deprive a person whose private rights are affected from seeking relief in the civil courts ... Where, as here, a pri­vate litigant's rights are affected by crimi­nal conduct, there is no question that the litigant has such standing ... More specifi­cally, where criminal conduct affects property rights, the person so affected may invoke the equitable jurisdiction of the court to obtain an injunction prohibiting the conduct" - See paragraph 20.

Injunctions - Topic 7123

Particular matters - Particular interests protected - Property rights - [See In­junctions - Topic 7078 ].

Practice - Topic 575

Parties - Persons unknown or not named -"John Doe" - Use of - [See Injunc­tions - Topic 4646 ].

Cases Noticed:

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 15].

Robinson v. Adams (1924), 56 O.L.R. 217 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers, [1978] A.C. 435 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 19].

Hurtig v. Reis, [1937] 3 W.W.R. 549 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Boyce v. Paddington Borough Council, [1903] 1 Ch. 109, revd. [1903] 2 Ch. 556 (C.A.), revd. [1906] A.C. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 20].

Marengo v. Daily Sketch and Sunday Graphic Inc., [1948] 1 All E.R. 406 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 25].

Iveson v. Harris (1802), 7 Ves. 251; 32 E.R. 102, refd to. [para. 25].

United Kingdom (Attorney General) v. Times Newspapers Ltd., [1991] 2 W.L.R. 994; 124 N.R. 175 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 26].

Director General of Fair Trading v. Smiths Concrete, [1991] 3 W.L.R. 707 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Supply of Ready Mixed Concrete, Re - see Director General of Fair Trading v. Smiths Concrete.

Seaward v. Paterson, [1897] 1 Ch. 545 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Bartle & Gibson Co. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, [1971] 2 W.W.R. 449 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Maritime Employers' Association et al. v. International Longshoremen's As­sociation, Local 273, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 120; 23 N.R. 386; 23 N.B.R.(2d) 458; 44 A.P.R. 458, refd to. [para. 30].

Attorney General v. Newspaper Publishing plc, [1987] 3 All E.R. 276 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Sandwich West (Township) v. Bubu Estates Ltd. et al. (1986), 17 O.A.C. 177; 30 D.L.R.(4th) 477 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Ontario Hydro v. Johnson (1985), 1 C.P.C.(2d) 234 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

Morgentaler v. Wiche, [1989] O.J. No. 2582 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Dieleman (1994), 20 O.R.(3d) 229 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 33].

Griffin Steel Foundries Ltd. v. Canadian Association of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers (1977), 80 D.L.R.(3d) 634 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Montres Rolex S.A. and Rolex Watch Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Balshin et al., [1990] 3 F.C. 353; 32 F.T.R. 166 (T.D.), affd. with a variation of the order [1993] 1 F.C. 236; 147 N.R. 297 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

United States v. Hall (1972), 472 F.2d 261 (5th Cir.), refd to. [para. 33].

Madsen v. Women's Health Center Inc. (1994), 114 S.Ct. 2516, refd to. [para. 33].

New York State National Organization for Women v. Terry (1992), 961 F.2d 390 (2d Cir.), refd to. [para. 33].

Dayton Women's Health Center v. Enix (1991), 589 N.E.2d 121 (Ohio Ct. App.), refd to. [para. 33].

Roe v. Operation Rescue (1990), 919 F.2d 857 (3d Cir.), refd to. [para. 33].

Cornell University v. Livingston (1972), 332 N.Y.S.2d 843 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 33].

Jackson v. Bubela, [1972] 5 W.W.R. 80 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 11 [para. 20].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sharpe, Robert J., Injunctions and Specific Performance (2nd Ed. 1995, loose-leaf), c. 4, p. 3-32 [para. 20].

Counsel:

Gregory J. McDade, Q.C., David Boyd and J. Demarco, for the appellant, Green­peace Canada;

A. Cameron Ward, for the appellant, Valerie Langer;

John J.L. Hunter, Q.C., and Peter G. Voith, for the respondent;

Michael Frey, for the intervener.

Solicitors of Record:

Gregory J. McDade, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant, Greenpeace Canada;

A. Cameron Ward, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant, Valerie Langer;

John J.L. Hunter, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent;

The Ministry of the Attorney General, Victoria, British Columbia, for the intervener.

This appeal was heard on April 22, 1996, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On August 22, 1996, McLachlin, J., delivered the following judgment for the court in both official languages.