Closing arguments begin in Wet’suwet’en abuse of process hearing over B.C. pipeline blockade

Closing arguments are currently underway in B.C. Supreme Court for an abuse of process application filed after three individuals were charged with criminal contempt of court for violating an injunction related to the Coastal GasLink pipeline.

Justice Michael Tammen is presiding over the abuse of process application brought by Sleydo’ (Molly Wickham), a wing chief of Cas Yikh, a house group of the Gidimt’en Clan of the Wet’suwet’en Nation, Shaylynn Sampson, a Gitxsan woman with Wet’suwet’en family connections, and Corey Jocko, a Kanien’kehá:ka (Mohawk) individual from Akwesasne, spanning the Quebec, Ontario, and New York state borders.

The trio was found guilty in January of criminal contempt of court for breaching an injunction against impeding work on the pipeline. The abuse of process application alleges that the RCMP used excessive force during the arrest of the accused in November 2021 and that the group faced unfair treatment while in custody.

The application seeks to have the criminal contempt of court charges stayed or the sentences reduced based on the alleged mistreatment by the police. Defence lawyer France Mahon commenced closing arguments on Monday, asserting that the police conduct in this case was so severe that convicting the accused would undermine public trust in the justice system.

Mahon emphasized that allowing racist jokes made by police officers about Sleydo’ and Sampson to go unchecked would signal that discriminatory attitudes towards Indigenous individuals are condoned without repercussions. This, in turn, could erode trust between Indigenous communities and law enforcement, hindering potential resolutions in future conflicts.

The defence argued that the accused’s Section 15 charter rights, which guarantee equality before the law without discrimination, were violated during their arrest. Mahon cited instances where RCMP officers made derogatory remarks towards Sleydo’ and Sampson due to their symbolic representation of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. Additionally, the forced removal of cultural items during processing and the unjust relocation of the accused from their traditional territory were highlighted as breaches of their rights.

Moreover, Mahon contended that the police unlawfully entered the structures where the arrests took place without warrants, violating Sections 8 and 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These sections safeguard individuals against unreasonable search or seizure and arbitrary detention or imprisonment, respectively.

The defence maintained that the structures, known as the tiny house and the cabin, qualified as dwelling houses under the Criminal Code, and the police’s actions were unlawful. Mahon presented evidence suggesting that the occupants had a reasonable expectation of privacy in these structures, emphasizing the lack of effort by the police to obtain warrants before entering.

The discussion in court also revealed that the injunction did not explicitly or implicitly authorize the police to search or enter dwelling houses without warrants on the site. The defence urged the court to consider previous legal cases where non-traditional homes were deemed dwelling houses and to acknowledge the occupants’ use of the structures as residences.

The closing arguments are set to continue on Tuesday as the court deliberates on the abuse of process application in this high-profile case.