The B.C. Court of Appeal says a Wet\u2019suwet\u2019en chief found guilty of criminal contempt for violating an injunction can’t use a “novel” claim that he was following Indigenous law when he violated a court order. Chief Dsta\u2019hyl, also known as Adam Bernard Gagnon, appealed his criminal contempt conviction after he was found in violation of an injunction to prevent protesters impeding work on the Coastal GasLink pipeline in 2021. The Appeal Court’s ruling says Gagnon raised an “uncomplicated” defence, claiming he shouldn’t be convicted of disobeying the injunction because he was “compelled” to do so under the Wet\u2019suwet\u2019en law of trespass. The ruling says the chief wasn’t asking the court to condone his conduct, but sought to be “excused from liability” based on evidence heard about the Wet\u2019suwet\u2019en trespass law… <\/p>\n
The B.C. Court of Appeal says a Wet\u2019suwet\u2019en chief found guilty of criminal contempt for violating an injunction can’t use a “novel” claim that he was following Indigenous law when he violated a court order. Chief Dsta\u2019hyl, also known as Adam Bernard Gagnon, appealed his criminal contempt conviction after he was found in violation of an injunction to prevent protesters impeding work on the Coastal GasLink pipeline in 2021. The Appeal Court’s ruling says Gagnon raised an “uncomplicated” defence, claiming he shouldn’t be convicted of disobeying the injunction because he was “compelled” to do so under the Wet\u2019suwet\u2019en law of trespass. The ruling says the chief wasn’t asking the court to condone his conduct, but sought to be “excused from liability” based on evidence heard about the Wet\u2019suwet\u2019en trespass law... <\/p>\n