British Columbia Civil Liberties Association | 13 April 2000 | For Immediate Release


Civil liberties group challenges Elaho Valley injuction that restricts freedom of expression and assembly

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association will argue today that an injunction granted by the B.C. Supreme Court to International Forest Products Ltd., Elaho Logging Ltd. and B.R. Adam Ltd. against Barney Kern, John and Jane Doe and Persons Unknown violates the constitutional rights of Canadians.

The injunction creates a geographic zone that excludes everyone except specified individuals from entering the area where the company is conducting road building activity in order to log in the Elaho Valley, near Squamish.

John Dives, legal counsel for the BCCLA, will argue that "the injunction is inordinately broad in its scope and that the court failed to respect Charter values including freedom of expression, association and assembly when crafting an appropriate order."

According to Mr. Dives, courts have the authority to grant an order prohibiting people from engaging in very specific activities that would interfere with the private rights of a company like Interfor. However, in this case, the court went further and banned citizens from protesting or even observing Interfor’s activities.

This "bubble zone" type of injunction is of particular concern to the BCCLA given the violence that has occurred over logging activities in the Elaho Valley. Last fall, environmental protesters were allegedly attacked by loggers. The media is also barred from gathering information and reporting on the logging activities or on any confrontation between protesters and loggers within the prohibited zones.

BCCLA counsel John Dives will deliver his arguments today before the B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver. He is a lawyer with Dives Grauer Harper.

MEDIA CONTACT
Murray Mollard, Policy Director
425 - 815 West Hastings Street
Vancouver, BC V6C 1B4
phone: (604) 687-2919
fax: (604) 687-3045
e-mail: info@bccla.org

- 30 -


Other Resources:
The Association's factum in the Elaho case