http://www.ourcourtssuck.com/Tale2lawyers.html
A Tale of Two Lawyers or Who Needs Fiction?
by Pandora Jones
©Radical Press
Renate Andres-Auger was a Cree woman lawyer, called to the bar in 1989 and opening a practice in Vancouver. By that time, Jack Cram was a respected Vancouver lawyer with much knowledge of real estate law and 25 years of experience.
Connect the dots. Chronology can not be strictly adhered to because of the mass of information.
Chief Justice McEachern used to be a member of a particular law firm. A court case arose that lasted 374 days in the Supreme Court, involving the Gitzan Wet'suwet'en Hereditary Chiefs in land claims. The lawyers for the Chiefs were from the same law firm as McEachern used to be with. These lawyers sold out their clients by agreeing that the territory involved did not belong to the natives, but to the Crown, from the time that the British claimed a colony there! Did the lawyers ask for a different judge? Did McEachern disqualify himself? Need you ask?
Auger continued to be outspoken about this case. In December 1992 the Law Society suspended her right to practice law, without notice and without a hearing, supposedly because her account books were not in order. She complied with all its demands, paid all the imposed fees and penalties, but she was not reinstated. Cram, her lawyer, came into the picture when Auger named a large group of judges and lawyers in her writ of summons, alleging that they had conspired to destroy her law practice and her reputation, to cover up corruption in the form of influence-peddling within the judicial system.
But consider: Cram had previously made a statement that if the truth be known, aboriginals do indubitably own 95% of the province of BC.
Let us go back aways, to the case of a Dr. Gossage, who had been accused of child pornography and sexual assault, indulged in during his practice of medicine. Not only was this man allowed to continue his practice whilst investigation was supposed to be going on, but a lawyer called Peter Leask was appointed as special prosecutor. Leask "managed" to "persuade" the judge to impose a gag order - not only on the allegations but also on the gag order itself!
Then let us move to the case of Mr. Benest, the Burnaby elementary school principal accused of using his pupils for pornographic purposes. Lo and behold, who was the counsel for Benest who succeeded in using delaying and obfuscation tactics to get his client no more than a slap on the wrist? Why, none other than Peter Leask!
And then we come to the grandparents of one child victim in the Gossage case, who hired Cram to represent them in their civil suit against Gossage. They decided to picket Gossage's office to warn other parents, since the judicial system saw fit to let Gossage continue practicing. Suddenly, more facts came to light. At least 30 people contacted Doug Stead, one of the grandparents, some from as far away as Ontario. None of them knew each other. And yet they all told similar stories. A suspicion emerged that Gossage was abusing kids in provincial care, which had to involve collusion. Cram's office was besieged with people giving information. He claimed that he was given pictures of teenage boys "in the company of" judges and evidence that children were taken from reserves and delivered to the Vancouver Club, never to be seen again.
Slide in time to the public statement of Harriet Nahanee, who saw a limousine arrive on her reserve and children with make-up applied being driven away, never to return.
Search your memory for MP Hedy Fry referring on tv to a Canada-wide pedophile ring.
Cram began to air what he knew publicly. He was interviewed by Georgia Straight and on Rafe Mair's show, among others. He was warned by Dr. Wayne Poley at a meeting that something bad would happen to him because of his pursuit of the horrible facts he had uncovered.
So, if we accept the facts so far, we have Cram acting for Auger and possessing all this damning information, not only about judicial corruption but pedophiles in high places within the judicial system.
Sure enough, not only was Auger deprived of her practice but Cram's practice also came under attack. In April 1994 Cram sued on the same grounds as Auger had: that named people conspired to deprive him of the practice of law. At the hearing, the police were present with a machine gun! And guess who was Cram's opponent, acting for the Law Society? Why, none other than our old friend, Peter Leask!
But appearing for Auger at her hearing, also in April, 1994, the court setting was grim. Sheriffs were present in numbers, not usual for civil cases. The plot was to present Cram as suffering from overwork and a drinking problem. Auger was sitting with Cram and without going into details of the set-up suffice it to say that the judge refused to listen to Cram, eventually finding him in contempt and telling him he needed counsel. Cram appointed Auger. She continued to ask the judge to say who had provided him with certain material to read before he heard the case, and to disqualify himself. Very quickly she was grabbed by four sheriffs, handcuffed and dragged to jail. The judge ordered Cram back to the counsel table - at this point Cram had moved to the gallery and was surrounded by friends. Cram refused.
By this time there were over forty sheriffs in the courtroom. The judge ordered them to arrest Cram and many of them wrestled him to the ground, hauling him off to jail too. But a lawyer friend intervened and got Cram released, but only to attend another hearing for the contempt charge. Jack was hauled into the room face down by several sheriffs, then spreadeagled and held down, one sheriff holding him by the throat. The judge apparently relented enough to allow Jack to make his case and by 4 pm that afternoon Cram had laid before Mr. Justice Callaghan details of a coverup by the head officers of the Law Society and by Judges to aid and abet a pedophile and also their allowing a lawyer to continue to practice who had been convicted of heroin possession for trafficking purposes, together with conspiring to destroy both his and Auger's right to practice law.
Adjournment was declared at 4 pm. Cram had not finished his evidence. That night Cram appeared on another radio show to talk about what he had discovered. Just after midnight on arriving home, Cram was attacked by ten police officers and his hands and feet shackled. He was neither read his rights or even informed what the assault was about. Why was an ambulance waiting? Cram was hustled into the ambulance and he believed he was drugged, as he does not remember arriving anywhere, but was detained against his will in the Psychiatric ward at Vancouver General Hospital for a week, during which time he was forcibly injected with a drug or drugs. He was in and out of drug-induced sleep. All attempts by friends and lawyers to contact him were refused.
The "committal" was authorized by two doctors who had just happened (what a coincidence!) to be sitting in the courtroom and had declared on the certificates that they had examined Cram! Now it's committal by remote control!
Cram was released on May 2nd. While he had been detained and drugged the Law Society had obtained a judicial order appointing two lawyers as custodians of his practice and its property. A witness watching Cram's office building saw people holding pictures and negatives up to the light in his office window. Note that the order was signed by Mr. Justice Bruce MacDonald, the same judge who had ordered the arrest of Renate Andres-Auger!
Auger managed to escape during this period and has not been heard of since. Jack Cram has also dropped out of the picture and is now ranching in the interior of the province and refuses to discuss the issue any longer.
Now move sideways in time to the evidence gathered by Rev. Kevin Annett about residential school abuses and huge numbers of murders of native children, portrayed in the media as a few priests with overactive hormones abusing a few children. It was during these hearings that witnesses spoke of pedophilia.
Connect the dots....
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/judge-dog-cougie-jack-cram-supreme-court-1.3726666
Courts are for resolutions, not revenge, Nova Scotia judge says in dog case
'The legal system can become an open mic for the angry,' wrote Justice Jamie Campbell
Courts cannot be used as a tool "to bring a world of hurt" on adversaries, a Nova Scotia judge has declared in the case of a retired lawyer who launched a barrage of legal actions over veterinary treatment given to his dog, Cougie.
"The courts are available for the controlled and restrained resolution of legal disputes. They are not available for litigants who grind out legal proceedings for the purpose of inflicting maximum punishment on their adversaries," wrote Justice Jamie Campbell of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia in a recent ruling.
'Open mic for the angry'
In the ruling, Campbell ordered that Jack Cram cannot take any new legal actions against several veterinarians, a vet clinic and the provincial veterinarians' association without court approval.
The judge further dismissed various Cram claims against other assorted adversaries.
"Mr. Cram is convinced that he is right. Everyone else is not only wrong but they are involved in a criminal conspiracy to thwart his quest for justice.
"People are allowed to think that way. They are allowed to rant, rage, and rave about the injustices that they perceive," said the judge.
"To some extent the legal system can become an open mic for the angry. But when a person crosses over into using multiple legal processes themselves as a cudgel to wreak vengeance on an opponent, the court is obliged to restrain them."
Negligence complaint
The dispute began in June 2015, when Cougie, Cram's Australian blue heeler, was prescribed medicine by a Bridgewater vet who never examined the dog. Cram alleged the medicine was harmful, and laid a negligence complaint with the Nova Scotia Veterinary Medical Association (NSVMA).
A NSVMA discipline committee rejected the complaint, and Cram appealed to the provincial Supreme Court, levelling a series of allegations in legal motions that drew in several law firms, judges and the prosecution service.
'Trying to bring a world of hurt'
In a July 7 oral ruling released in written form this week, Campbell noted Cram's bid for judicial review of the vets' association ruling will be heard in the Supreme Court in September, but his "circus of motions" needed to stop.
"He has issues with and made serious allegations regarding the Chief Justice of Nova Scotia, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, various named and unnamed judges of the Supreme Court, the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court, the Court Administrator, the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the person who answers the phone at the office of the DPP, the Nova Scotia Barrister's Society, the Nova Scotia Veterinary Medical Association, the members of the Complaints Committee of the NSVMA, Nova Veterinary Clinic Ltd., various named veterinarians, and generally all veterinarians in Nova Scotia, and of course, the opposing lawyers," said Campbell.
"A litigant does not have a right to unrestrained access to the justice system for the purpose of pursuing an agenda that has nothing to do with a legitimate cause of action and everything to do with trying to bring a world of hurt down upon other parties through the aggressive abuse of the process itself."
'Hard to imagine' dog cares
Cram argued his quest for justice was on behalf of the "unjustifiable suffering" of his dog, but Campbell was skeptical.
"With respect, it is hard to imagine that Cougie much cares who wins which application or motion," the judge wrote.
In 1994, Cram was convicted of criminal contempt of court by the B.C. Supreme Court for being "intemperate and disrespectful to the presiding judge and to the court in general."
He was fined and temporarily prohibited from practicing law.
CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices
Cougie the dog’s upset stomach proves just how corrupt Nova Scotia’s courts are: Morning File: Thursday, August 18, 2016
By Tim Bousquet
An Australian Blue Heeler who hasn’t clogged up the Nova Scotia court system.
Besides zoning out on ships, I sometimes amuse myself by reading court decisions. Understand that the vast majority of court decisions are horrifying affairs, detailing broken families, horrendous murders, tragic car accidents, and the like, but every now and then something downright ridiculous comes down, and I treasure those decisions.
Consider, for example, the case of Cram v. Nova Veterinary Clinic Ltd, heard on July 7 by Justice Jamie Campbell.
John Cram, who goes by the name of Jack Cram, was suing not just the Nova Veterinary Clinic, but also Dr. Brian Manuel, Dr. Michael Howlett, Ms. Sylvia Bush, Nova Scotia Veterinary Medical Association (NSVMA), Brian MacInnis, Dr. Ed MacAuley, Dr. Elizabeth Croft, Dr. Fran Minty, Sandra McCulloch, Dr. Lisa Welland, and Dr. Julie Weste.
This all started with Cram’s dog, a female Australian Blue Heeler named Cougie. Cram, for his part, is apparently a former lawyer, breed unknown.
Cougie evidently wasn’t feeling well, so in June 2014 Cram took her to Michael Howlett, a veterinarian in Bridgewater, who didn’t actually examine the creature, but prescribed some unnamed medication. Sometime later, Cougie was diagnosed, presumably by another vet, with a bowel infection. So Cram sued Howlett and the Nova Veterinary Clinic.
Writes Campbell:
Since then the matter has been in court numerous times. It has become a circus of motions. Cougie and her treatment seem to have faded into the background as the focus has become the litigation itself and Mr. Cram’s perception of widespread corruption within the justice system in Nova Scotia. The procedural details of that litigation point not only to the relentlessness with which Mr. Cram has pursued the dispute, but also to the extent to which the litigation has become less about achieving an outcome than about harassing the other parties.
Mr. Cram filed a complaint about Cougie’s treatment with the Nova Scotia Veterinary Medical Association. The Chair of the Complaints Committee appointed an investigator and also appointed members to a Complaints Committee. On January 13, 2016, after an investigation of the complaint, the Complaints Committee dismissed Mr. Cram’s complaint. That was not the end of it of course.
Mr. Cram filed a Notice for Judicial Review at the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia on February 11, 2016. On March 3, 2016 he filed an Amended Notice for Judicial Review. On March 29, 2016 Mr. Cram filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to the judicial review matter. On April 14, 2016 Mr. Cram filed a new motion to further amend the Notice for Judicial Review. He appealed the Motion for Directions, which set the matter down for a hearing. He accused Justice Pickup who heard the Motion for Directions of being biased against him. He appeared before Justice Van den Eynden at the Court of Appeal to set the appeal down for a hearing. He accused her of being biased against him. The matter came before Justice Scanlan of the Court of Appeal. Mr. Cram’s appeal was dismissed. In doing so, Justice Scanlan did not mince words. Mr. Cram accuses him of bias as well.
Mr. Cram filed a motion on April 27, 2016 seeking an injunction restraining the NSVMA and its counsel from conducting themselves in an “adversarial or non- impartial way” in the judicial review. The Motion for Summary Judgment on the judicial review matter and for an injunction to prevent McInnes Cooper and Cox & Palmer from being involved in the matter were set for May 16, 17 and 18, 2016 by Justice Lynch. Mr. Cram told the Prothonotary that Justice Lynch had abused her authority and must be disqualified for partiality and bias. Those motions were heard before Justice Warner. In the course of that hearing Mr. Cram referred to Justice Warner as a “crook”. The motions were dismissed.
Campbell opened his decision noting that:
John (Jack) Cram has managed to accuse just about everyone he has dealt with in the Nova Scotia legal system of being corrupt. I have the confident expectation that I will now be specifically named as being in that company, at least to the extent of being biased and vindictive. I say that without having had the opportunity to meet Mr. Cram. He sent a letter dated July 5, 2016 requesting, or perhaps more accurately demanding, an adjournment of today’s hearing on July 7, 2016. On the fourth and final page of that letter he says, “There is no reason other than the bias and vindictiveness displayed so flagrantly by your predecessor, to refuse the adjournment, while there is no reason, with the terms I propose below, not to grant it.” Mr. Cram indicated in his letter that he would not be attending court on July 7, 2016. I responded to Mr. Cram and counsel on July 6, 2016 denying the adjournment request.
Mr. Cram’s reasons for the adjournment included his apprehension with regard to what might happen to him if he came to court before a judge in Halifax. He related that when he last appeared in court he was accused of slandering the judge and of contempt. He says that he was threatened with “the fifth floor”, which he took to mean jail. The fifth floor of the Law Courts in Halifax does not contain jail cells. It is the location of the Court of Appeal. On page one of Mr. Cram’s letter he says, “Because I live alone and have no family or close friends in Nova Scotia who could ‘step in’ for me, I am very concerned about what might happen to my 6 pets and homes, so frankly I am afraid, not for myself, but for my pets and my property, to attend before a judge in Halifax again.” That would be an unusual pitch from any litigant, but it is especially so given that Mr. Cram is a retired lawyer with many years of experience before the courts in another Canadian province.
In the mix of all this, last month Cram wrote a letter to Chief Justice MacDonald alleging all sorts of corruption. Campbell describes the letter:
It is a bizarre tirade regarding the “legal holocaust” by lawyers, judges and staff of the courts, which he suggests has been watched and “perhaps even coached and applauded from the sidelines” by Chief Justice MacDonald, Chief Justice Kennedy, the Deputy Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Barristers Society, the Attorney General’s office and the Court Administrator. He refers to “your picayune-rule-enforcing- power-abusing-justice-obstructing ‘let’s give Mr. Cram yet another ask and answer type (non) reply from the Chief Justice’” (p. 1). He says that judges and judicial staff have stigmatized and slandered him due to irrelevant events 22 years ago, and allowed rampant personal bias throughout the courts added to partiality toward opposing counsel who is a Supreme Court judge’s wife and “her lyin-Ryan junior Mr. Baxter”. He refers to counsel’s “corrupt-out-of-legal control-Vet-protecting- damn-the-public-interest-perverting/obstructing-justice-NSVMA, that ‘poor- province-wide organization-downtrodden-by-little-old-all-by-himself-Jack Cram’” (p. 2). He says that “judges, lawyers and Crown counsel obviously directed and orchestrated to do whatever they want – legal or not to – ‘shut down my own personal quest for justice’ (more for the unjustifiable suffering of my dog Cougie than for me), thus your courts are secretly NEITHER INDEPENDENT NOR IMPARTIAL” (p. 3).
With respect, it is hard to imagine that Cougie much cares who wins which application or motion.
Well, to cut to the chase, Campbell ruled against Cram and awarded costs to the defendants. But Campbell took the additional step of ruling that Cram cannot commence any further court proceedings against the defendants in this action without first obtaining leave of the court. He wrote:
The courts have to remain open to difficult, obstreperous, annoying, unreasonable, foolish, irrational, wasteful, and mean-spirited people. They are not restricted to internet blogs and postings on news websites. To some extent the legal system can become an open mike for the angry. But when a person crosses over into using multiple legal processes themselves as a cudgel to wreak vengeance on an opponent, the court is obliged to restrain them.
Cram, incidentally, was convicted of contempt of court in 1994, in British Columbia, and reading that decision is great fun as well.
About Tim Bousquet
Comments
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/1994/1994canlii480/1994canlii480.html
British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Cram, 1994 CanLII 480 (BC SC)
DATE OF RELEASE: JULY 8, 1994 No. CC940548
VANCOUVER REGISTRY
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
BETWEEN: )
)
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN )
IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE ) ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AS )
REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY )
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL )
) OF THE HONOURABLE
PLAINTIFF )
)
AND: )
) MR. JUSTICE BRAIDWOOD
JACK N. CRAM )
)
DEFENDANT )
DATES AND PLACE OF TRIAL: JUNE 28, 29, 30 and
JULY 4, 1994
COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF: P. EWERT, Q.C.,
G. HALES
COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT: T. WALSH
_______________________________________________________
Jack Cram is charged with contempt in the face of the court in the course of a hearing before Mr. Justice Callaghan on April 22, last. The particulars are that he refused to abide by a direction of the Court and that he urged his supporters in the courtroom to physically attack sheriff's officers who had been directed by the judge to remove one of his supporters from the courtroom. The allegation of refusing to abide by the direction of the Court relates to a refusal to return to the counsel table from his position in the public area of the courtroom.
This case is not about the merits of Mr. Cram's opinions, his allegations towards the judiciary, his ability to make whatever submissions that may be appropriate to a particular case or about his ability to maintain or defend whatever litigation he may think appropriate. This case is about a deliberate and conscious interference with the course of justice. It is about the ability of litigants to enter the court and obtain a fair trial in a calm, mature and intellectual atmosphere so that their arguments may be properly considered and that such litigants may not only appear to have received justice but indeed have received it. This, in the final analysis, is what respect for the judicial process is all about.
The statement of Chief Justice McEachern in MacMillan Bloedel Limited v. Sheila Simpson et al., (March 28, 1994) Victoria Reg. V02011, at p. 47, is apt:
The true nature of the contempt power of a superior court is well described by Sir Jack Jacob Q.C. in The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court (1970) 23 Curr. Legal Probs 23 at 27-28. The following passage is quoted in nearly every judgment on this question.
For the essential character of a superior court of law necessarily involves that it should be invested with a power to maintain its authority and to prevent its process being obstructed and abused. Such a power is intrinsic in a superior court; it is its very life-blood, its very essence, its immanent attribute. Without such a power,the court would have form but would lack substance. The jurisdiction which is inherent in a superior court of law is that which enables it to fulfil itself as a court of law. The juridical basis of this jurisdiction is therefore the authority of the judiciary to uphold, to protect and to fulfil the judicial function of administering justice according to law in a regular, orderly and effective manner.
See also, Morris and others v. The Crown Office, [1970] 1 All E.R. 1079 at 1081, where Lord Denning M.R. wrote, as follows:
. . .The phrase 'contempt in the face of the court' has a quaint old-fashioned ring about it; but the importance of it is this: of all the places where law and order must be maintained, it is here in these courts. The course of justice must not be deflected or interfered with. Those who strike at it strike at the very foundations of our society. To maintain law and order, the judges have, and must have, power at once to deal with those who offend against it. It is a great power─without trial─but it is a necessary power.
The framework in which these allegations arose is that Mr. Cram personally sued certain defendants, one being the Law Society of British Columbia and Peter Leask, Q.C., and in separate proceedings he sued one Barry Kaplan and Others. The defendants in those two actions had each set chambers applica-tions for hearing, applications of which Mr. Cram had full notice. In the first, the Law Society was applying to strike out portions of the statement of claim. In the second, the defendants were seeking to have a costs matter, which had been partly heard before Master Barber, but which had been adjourned by him after Mr. Cram had commenced an action against him and many others in the course of the hearing. The application was to have another master appointed to carry on with the hearing and for certain other relief. The incident before the master which took place on March 14 was the first occasion on which Mr. Cram had disrupted court proceedings to make paranoic allegations of corruption on the part of the court and others.
It was common knowledge among counsel and the judiciary, including Mr. Justice Callaghan, that Mr. Cram was alleging that no trials whatsoever and indeed no applications whatsoever should proceed before any judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia because of some vague allegation on his part that. . . "regrettably that independence of the judiciary does not exist in this province and that no cases whatsoever should proceed". These were allegations that Mr. Cram made when he applied for an adjournment of a trial to be heard before a jury in the Corporation of the District of Matsqui v. John Higgins & Others on April 11, 1994 before The Honourable Mr. Justice Catliff. With the consent of counsel, I have perused the transcript of those proceedings. A panel had been summonsed in that case from which a jury was to be selected and all of the jury panel appeared, pursuant to their subpoenas. Mr. Cram had given some indication on the previous Friday (April 11 was a Monday) that he would ask for an adjournment but apparently without stating grounds. Mr. Cram announced that the adjournment application would take some three hours. Mr. Justice Catliff was amazed that an application to adjourn a jury case would take three hours in duration and that notice had only been given in the afternoon of the business day before. He excused the jury until two o'clock that same afternoon in order to attempt to minimize the resulting inconvenience to the public. In the final conclusion, the case was adjourned.
In this prior case, many spectators were present in order to hear the submissions of Mr. Cram. Mr. Cram opened his submissions by making an incomprehensible series of allegations which supposedly was supported by an unstamped affidavit concern-ing which Mr. Cram said ". . . the version I am handing up does not have a date stamp and but I instructed my secretary to file it this morning and I am sure it has been filed by now. . . ." Rather obviously there was no time whatsoever for Mr. MacKenzie to prepare himself for the allegations which appeared to seek damages in an undisclosed manner from the Chief Justice, the Attorney General, the Ministry of the Attorney General, certain lawyers, the Law Society of British Columbia, Southam Business Communications, the Pacific Press, the Vancouver Sun, the Vancouver Province and many others. None of the named defendants of course had been served or had notice of any such proceedings so they had no opportunity to answer even if they were so inclined. Once again the submission is vague but it appeared that there was another action in which the plaintiff is either Mr. Cram or Ms. Renate Andres-Auger, alleging she was injured in the practice of law by the Chief Justice, the Associate Chief Justice, Justices Allan, Hall, Warren, Kirkpatrick, all the masters, all the judges, all the lawyers and the Law Society. A further allegation was that there was some kind of a conspiracy ". . . to cover up corruption in the form of influence peddling within the judiciary and legal profession and the government of British Columbia. . . and all this appears to be to the end that these individuals . . . mounted a major and concerted campaign to discredit and prevent the plaintiff from practising law and to discredit the plaintiff's counsel". After hearing these allegations Mr. Justice Catliff attempted to find out what was the basis of the submission for adjournment that Mr. Cram was making, because there appeared to be no connection to a motion to adjourn in the allegations.
I infer from reading the transcripts from the proceed-ings of April 22, 1994 in which the allegations of contempt arose that Mr. Justice Callaghan was quite properly scandalized to hear that unfounded and indeed paranoid allegations of the nature above described were being made by Mr. Cram which would have the effect of grinding the whole justice system to a halt and that no cases whatsoever should be heard in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. One would have been amazed if Mr. Justice Callaghan had not read the transcript of April 11, 1994 in order to prepare himself for the submissions that he knew could again be made before him in the case to be heard on April 22, 1994.
The proceedings before Mr. Justice Callaghan fulfilled his expectations. Mr. Cram stated again that his application to adjourn would take three hours. He started his submission by handing up a transcript of the proceedings of April 11, 1994 which referred to the events which unfolded before Mr. Justice Catliff. Once again, there was a large number of Mr. Cram's supporters and other persons in the gallery. In order to shorten matters, Mr. Justice Callaghan indicated that he had just read the transcript. Mr. Cram then, quite improperly, immediately began to cross-examine Mr. Justice Callaghan, as to where he received the transcript and whether he had been briefed on this matter by the Chief Justice. One can only categorize this position as being both paranoid and outrageous.
It is important at this point to note the case before Mr. Justice Callaghan had originally been scheduled in one of the smaller courtrooms in the court building for in the usual course of events, chamber applications attract few on-lookers. Because of the number of people who had come to watch the proceedings, (variously estimated between 80-150 persons), the proceedings were moved to Courtroom 53, one of the biggest courtrooms so that a large number of on-lookers could be accommodated.
The evidence before me discloses that Mr. Cram only informed counsel acting in the matter of his intention to apply for an adjournment on the morning of the proceedings and filed no material in advance to support any submissions so that the submission was made in chaotic circumstances and without the required prior notice. Some of the persons who were in the audience that day were called before me as witnesses. It is apparent they came with an expectation that Mr. Cram's allegations against the Judiciary, the Law Society, the Government and Others was the subject matter of the proceedings and that being so, Mr. Cram would be given an opportunity to be heard on those allegations in court.
Obviously, that is not the case. The time to make such allegations, if they are to be made at all, is not on an application based on the pleadings in a manner which ambushes one's opponent.
This, of course, is apart from the rather obvious fact that the allegations themselves, on their face, are patently ridiculous. That is not to say that there might not be some part of the allegation that needs to be aired in court but certainly not the allegation that Mr. Cram was making that no case whatso-ever could be heard by any judge in the whole of the Supreme Court which is comprised of some 100 judges. It was necessary for him to go that far otherwise there would be no link between his allegations against a few of the judges and his application to adjourn a particular hearing.
There is, of course, an inherent contradiction in the actions of Mr. Cram. Why has he brought an action in the Supreme Court if his allegation is that no judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia is competent to hear it?
A further contradiction was disclosed when I asked Mr. Cram, specifically when he was on the witness stand, whether his allegations did indeed include all of the judges of the Supreme Court, including myself. He indicated that no, his allegations only included a few of the judges in the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice, and I think he named about three or maybe four other judges. This being so, the tenor of his allegations are entirely without merit, namely that all of the cases that he is on and indeed all of the cases in Supreme Court should be adjourned. Mr. Justice Catliff and Mr. Justice Callaghan were not originally included in those allegations. However, later when Mr. Cram did not have his own way with the court, he then, during the course of the proceedings before Mr. Justice Callaghan, did include Mr. Justice Callaghan in his allegations.
The statements made by Mr. Cram in the proceedings before both Mr. Justice Catliff and Mr. Justice Callaghan, make it obvious that Mr. Cram was simply using the courtroom as a platform for a speech to his supporters, friends and other on-lookers who were encouraged to attend the proceedings by his appearance in the media, phone calls to various persons in the audience made by him and speeches he made to various groups, e.g., the Patients' Rights group.
In the light of those circumstances, many members of the public were obviously quite stunned when it was apparent that Mr. Justice Callaghan was not going to have anything to do with listening to a three hour ramble against the judiciary, ending in a submission that no litigation whatsoever should proceed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Unhappily, those members of the public had an erroneous expectation of what the proceedings before Mr. Justice Callaghan were all about.
Mr. Justice Callaghan then indicated that if the application to adjourn was going to take three hours, he was not going to hear the application to adjourn.
Then the following exchange took place.
MR. CRAM:You are going to hear what I have to say. That is what courts are for in case you forgot.
THE COURT:Mr. Cram, I am telling you right now, I am only interested in hearing the applications and dealing with them. I don't know whether -- how they will come out. I have no idea.
MR. CRAM: I think you do.
THE COURT:It is in your best interests, I think, that I hear the evidence.
MR. CRAM: I don't think it is.
THE COURT:Or whatever it might be, the evidence by affidavit and --
MR. CRAM:You are going to hear my applications. Aside from wanting an adjournment, my lord, it is quite inappropriate for you to even hear this matter because, as you know if you have read the pleadings in the Leask action, you tried the Constantini/Trower matter, which is the very center of this case. Now, so it would be completely improper for you to hear this matter.
THE COURT: Did I try that?
MR. CRAM: Yes. And that is very central to this whole case.
THE COURT:Any more outbursts and I will have the sheriffs remove the individuals involved.
MR. CRAM: You must disqualify yourself.
THE COURT:Because I have taken an action -- because I have heard an action against Mr. Trower?
MR. CRAM:In which you found that Trower was a crook, aside from anything else, and we know he is a crook.
THE COURT: That was a number of years ago.
MR. CRAM: 1990 to be exact. July 15th, 1990.
The court once again says to Mr. Cram:
THE COURT:Why are you bringing the application to adjourn? Can you just explain it to me, please?
MR. CRAM:I am just going to read what Mr. Justice Catliff said after cutting me off before I was finished. I was not finished.
THE COURT:Go ahead.
MR. CRAM:He says, in a case where I was counsel for the clients, not the litigant myself, whereas in this case I am the litigant:
I think that the interest of justice requires that this matter be adjourned in view of those very serious allegations Mr. Cram has made.
I will skip down a bit. It is underlined:
-- He represents that he might be unable to obtain the trial that is normally to be expected in these courts.
I have absolutely no confidence in this court whatsoever and none of my clients have either because there is massive corruption in this court and I am here to tell you about it.
THE COURT:Mr. Cram, you are getting very close to contempt.
MR. CRAM:I am going to tell you about corruption in these courts.
THE COURT:I am warning you now. With statements like that you are getting very close to contempt.
MR. CRAM:My lord, I am going to read to you a few things that prove that there is corruption in this court and you cannot hold me in contempt for saying that there is corruption in this court because that very order would be corrupt. Your sitting on this case is corrupt. So you should get out of here.
THE COURT:Mr. Cram, you don't -- I gather you have no faith at all in the system?
MR. CRAM: Absolutely not.
Then, after a brief exchange, the court says:
THE COURT:As I have said, Mr. Cram, you are getting very close to contempt.
MR. CRAM:I am supposed to -- I am in contempt of court that has a chief justice that aided and abetted a child-molester -- alleged child-molester. I am in contempt of that and I am also in contempt of a Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal who defrauded the Natives of their lands in this province and I will prove that. Do you want me to prove it, because I can prove it in about five minutes, and that is why these people, many of them Natives, are here, because they want to be heard.
THE COURT:You keep talking like that --
MR. CRAM:Go ahead and throw me in jail, I don't care. This is a disgustingly corrupt court.
THE COURT:Mr. Cram, you give me no alternative but to -- do you wish counsel to represent you?
MR. CRAM:This is my counsel here. She is right here. Go ahead.
MS. ANDRES-
AUGER:What am I representing? Are you making a charge that Mr. Cram is under contempt of court?
THE COURT:I won't find him in contempt of court as yet, but he is getting very close to it. What is your name?
MS. ANDRES-
AUGER:Rebate[sic] Andres-Auger. I am an incompetent lawyer according to the Bar of this province. I find myself quite in my element, however.
THE COURT:Would you sit down?
MS. ANDRES-
AUGER:No. I understand that you made forays on your own to look at other cases that Mr. Cram was involved in.
THE COURT:Would you please sit down?
MS. ANDRES-
AUGER:You have taken judicial notice of things that are not within your grasp.
THE COURT:Would you please sit down? Would you please remove Ms. Andres-Auger from the courtroom?
MS. ANDRES-
AUGER:I am acting on behalf of Mr. Cram.
THE COURT:Remove that woman from this court.
MS. ANDRES-
AUGER:Don't touch me. Don't touch me.
MR. CRAM: Leave her alone. Let go, let go.
MS. ANDRES-
AUGER:No, no, leave me alone.
MR. CRAM: Give her a hand. Come on, stop them. Son of a --
THE COURT: What did you say?
MR. CRAM: Nothing.
THE COURT: Mr. Reporter, what did --
THE REPORTER:Son of a --
THE COURT: Mr. Cram, I distinctly --
MR. CRAM: So no counsel, is that it now?
THE COURT: I distinctly --
UNIDENTIFIED
VOICE: Let her out, let her out, let her out.
THE COURT:We'll adjourn.
It is common ground that Ms. Andres-Auger has had her right to practise suspended by the Law Society, it is also clear from the above quoted exchange that the court said that ". . . I won't find him in contempt of court as yet, but he is getting very close to it. . . " Accordingly, there was no need for Ms. Andres-Auger to say anything further.
The transcript clearly indicates that Mr. Cram turned to the crowd and said "Give her a hand. Come on, stop them. Son of a --".
Counsel have agreed that the transcript is an accurate record of those things that it purports to represent but it is not complete in the sense that the court reporter could not copy down everything that was said or done. For this, other witnesses have to be referred to.
I unhesitatingly accept the evidence testified to by sheriff's officers, Punn, Pasholko, Nelson and Dhandwar, as being substantially correct. Their evidence is also corroborated in many material particulars by an independent witness, namely Mr. Nelson. Pierre Punn was of the opinion that what the judge said was to arrest the "female" lawyer. He testified that he asked her to come with him, held his right hand in the air behind her shoulder and with his left hand, indicated towards the door. She refused to accompany him so he grabbed her right arm and together with Officer Pasholko (a female officer), they started to remove her from the well of the courtroom. Ms. Andres-Auger said "Don't touch me" and did all she could to resist including going limp and falling to the floor, screaming, scratching and fighting the officers. Sheriff Pasholko confirmed this narrative.
Mr. Nelson is a barrister and solicitor and an associate of Mr. T.R. Berger, Q.C. He testified that he heard that Mr. Berger's name was going to be mentioned on the morning in question. Mr. Berger was away in Switzerland and so Mr. Nelson decided to attend in court and take notes in order to be able to report what occurred.
I have a transcript of the evidence of Mr. Nelson and he said, in part, "But the judge, Mr. Justice Callaghan, tired of that business [the insults] after a while, ordered that the sheriffs to take her into custody and remove her from the courtroom".
QAll right. What happened at that point?
AAt that point, Mr. Cram had been standing up near the counsel table and he walked back toward where I was sitting, at the reporters' table.
QM-hm.
AAnd he urged the crowd to help her, "Help her out, help her out." She was being grabbed and taken away by the sheriffs who were trying to take her out the door - I believe it was on the left of the courtroom. . .And Mr. Cram came back to urge . . . the crowd to "Help her, help her."
He then described a woman who was wrestling with the sheriffs at the gate of the bar and he picked her out of the courtroom.
QDid you gain any impression of the mood of that particular group of people, the crowd? Any sign of any mood in that group?
AAt the time that Mr. Cram was urging them on, they were yelling and shouting, and there were some people moving toward the gate. . . I was actually quite alarmed. I thought that at any instant the crowd could come over the barrier and do whatever might be done in the body of the court.
Mr. Nelson further testified that his impression at the time was that there were about five sheriffs in the courtroom at the commencement of the arrest of Ms. Andres-Auger. Other sheriffs, in the meantime, were pouring into the courtroom and were positioning themselves between the crowd and the well of the court. Mr. Nelson testified that, at this time, there was an adjournment and that a gentleman in the crowd with longish white and grey hair and a scraggy face made a short speech to the crowd that had a calming affect. Mr. Cram said to the crowd, "Do you want to hear how the Chief Justice aids and abets -- I think it was "pedophiles" -- I think he may have said "child molester", -- "Do you want to hear how the Chief Justice defrauded the Native people of their land?" At this time Mr. Cram was standing amongst the public in the room. Then Mr. Cram said "Go and get the sound system set up, the sound system." And then "as well, my recollection is that he urged the crowd again to assist Ms. Andres-Auger behind the scenes, behind, taken into custody -- to attack the sheriffs, as it were."
QThis all happened while Mr. Justice Callaghan was not in the courtroom.
AYes, that's my recollection.
He then described that for about twenty-minutes, speeches were made. ". . . what had to be done to correct the justice system and how the justice system was all at fault for this and the sheriffs, I guess, decided that it was not a particularly good idea to provoke a confrontation with a crowd at this point and certainly the crowd was restive, angry, it seemed and they did not make any efforts to clear the courtroom; they just stood there. And I think from time to time one of the sheriffs would engage one of the people who were making speeches and so forth in conversation, and I had the feeling they were trying to quiet the -- to quiet the crowd and just defuse the tension that existed in the courtroom."
Mr. Nelson was asked whether it was feasible for the sheriffs to have taken Ms. Andres-Auger through the normal public door rather than through the door that led to the jail cells. His answer was that there was no possibility because of all of the people that were gathering near the doorway and creating a ruckus. He said they had to take her out through the security door.
In cross-examination, Mr. Nelson testified that there were two or three people who he saw actively involved in pushing and shoving with the sheriffs at the time Ms. Andres-Auger was arrested which followed after Mr. Cram urged the public to go to her assistance. Deputy Sheriff Cowan described that after he saw Sheriff Punn speak to Ms. Andres-Auger, he put his hand on her right elbow and she resisted. At that time she screamed and struggled and Mr. Cram urged the crowd by saying "Look what they are doing. Come on, help her. Come on, help her." and the crowd was hostile, agitated and vocal. He described these remarks by Mr. Cram to be made to assist her in getting away from the sheriffs. Sheriff Pasholko assisted in the removal of Ms. Andres-Auger's from the courtroom. She testified that immediately when Sheriff Punn touched her right arm she began to scream. She went limp and fell to the ground. She was told "Come with me and you will not get hurt", but she continued to scream. The sheriff testified that there was no option but for them to take her through the door leading to the cells.
In the report filed by Deputy Sheriff Pasholko on April 25, 1994, she stated:
. . .I took her left arm and stated to her, 'Sheriffs, Madam, by Order of the Court, I am removing you from the court'. She then shouted obscenities and was completely out of control.
D/S Punn and myself struggled with her to the docket door where she was taken from us by D/S Dhandwar, D/S Baird, and another deputy as I was wearing a firearm. . . Yelling behind the door was heard in the courtroom which seemed to have an affect on the crowd as well as Mr. Cram. Mr. Cram was yelling to the crowd Save Her, Save Her'. Mr. Cram, at this point, was in the middle of the Public Gallery. About half a dozen people singled out to be catalysts among the group started chant-ing and taunting the court. The Judge asked Mr. Cram to come up to the front several times. Mr. Cram refused. The Judge then sighted him for Contempt of Court. Mr. Cram and another person were taken into custody. The crowd was getting out of control again being fed by the catalysts. The Judge reappeared and formally adjourned to 2 P.M. to speak to Mr. Cram on the Contempt."
I have no hesitation in finding that Mr. Justice Callaghan issued a lawful order to have Ms. Andres-Auger removed from the court. The sheriffs asked her to come peaceably and when she refused, they took hold of her arm, at which point she reacted in a hysterical and irrational manner, screaming, kicking and even scratching one of the sheriffs at which point Mr. Cram urged the crowd to physically intervene on her behalf. He continued to urge the public to assist her even after she was behind the shut door on the way to the cells.
I have formed a most favourable opinion of certain of the defence witnesses who were present in the body of the courtroom, particularly the evidence of C. McNeil, Mrs. Kathleen Sparrow and Dr. Ross.
Dr. Ross indicated that she was seated in a position that prevented her from seeing the exact circumstances that occurred when the sheriffs removed Ms. Andres-Auger but she heard a number of thumps, bumps and bangs and "she had a very high voice". She said she was upset when the lawyer was taken away. This witness described Ms. Andres-Auger as fighting but she didn't testify that there were any blows to her.
Mr. Doug Stead described the removal of Ms. Andres-Auger. He described it as "dragging" her out and she called to "let me go" and she screamed inside the door. He rather thought that the sheriffs could have handled her differently. He did describe the fact that she was kicking and screaming. This witness described how Mr. Cram came to a Patients' Rights group meeting of which he was a member and there explained what he thought of the justice system. Mr. Stead was of the under-standing that on the day in question there was going to be a court case concerning these allegations. That was his expectation.
Ms. Kathleen Sparrow is an elderly woman, who has had a great deal of experience with Native rights and matters to do with law reform. She was telephoned by the lawyer for the Mount Curry Indian Band to suggest that she should attend. She and other friends attended at the hearing. She was not able to say how the removal actually began but only that Mr. Cram wanted to help her and that the lawyer was screaming.
Some of the witnesses, including Mr. Cram, called by the defence, went further than the above witnesses and described the fact that Ms. Andres-Auger was not given an opportunity to come peacefully with the sheriffs but rather was immediately seized and she was screaming in pain. I do not accept this evidence. I conclude that Ms. Andres-Auger was given a chance to leave peacefully, and she certainly did scream, went limp and fell to the floor, kicked and even scratched but all of these activities were of her own doing in her attempt to resist the sheriffs. There was no reason whatsoever why she could not have walked out quietly with the sheriffs.
COUNT TWO
As described above, the court had adjourned during the removal of Ms. Andres-Auger. When it reconvened, Mr. Cram was standing in the public area with a number of his supporters standing up around him. At that time, the following exchange took place:
THE COURT:Mr. Cram, would you come up here?
MR. CRAM:I am staying amongst friends, safety in numbers.
THE COURT: Are you not going to -- are you not going to proceed and deal with these applications?
MR. CRAM: I am asking for an adjournment and I wish to be heard on that application.
THE COURT:Mr. Cram, if you can give me -- I will give you a few minutes on the basis of your application to adjourn.
MR. CRAM:A few minutes is not enough.
THE COURT:You insist on three hours?
MR. CRAM:You have taken -- I also want you to release Rebate[sic] Andres-Auger before anything else happens.
THE COURT:Are you not going to appear on these applications?
MR. CRAM: I am here. I am appearing.
THE COURT:Very well. I am going to hear counsel then. You have an application?
MR. CRAM:I am applying for an adjournment.
THE COURT:Mr. Cram, if you are not going to come to the counsel table.
MR. CRAM:What we have got here is an army. What are you going to do with me. I am not getting out of here.
THE COURT:I'll deal with you later.
UNIDENTIFIED
VOICE:Put him in jail and lock him up and beat him, beat him up, no way.
THE COURT:Remove that woman, please.
UNIDENTIFIED
VOICE:Remove that woman, please. I have no problems with that but you are a crook. Beat me up too. I'm standing right here and I ain't moving from here. How is that?
THE COURT:Mr. Cram, unless you are prepared to come up to the counsel table --
MR. CRAM:I would like a few bodyguards up there.
THE COURT:I'm telling you right now, unless you come up to the counsel table --
MR. CRAM:I would like a few people. We have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two, twenty-three -- twenty-four sheriffs.
THE COURT:Mr. Cram --
MR. CRAM:Twenty-six. I trained these people.
THE COURT:Unless you come out from the individuals that are back there, numbering about one hundred I would say, unless --
MR. CRAM:I don't give a damn about the Cram v. Leask action because I knew you would be here to dismiss it. I don't care.
THE COURT:Mr. Cram.
MR. CRAM:Go ahead and dismiss it. Don't hear from me.
THE COURT:All I want you to do is to make a submission to me but I will hear the other side.
MR. CRAM:I have no trust in you.
THE COURT:That is unfortunate.
MR. CRAM:Because you should be disqualified.
THE COURT:This is not a theater.
MR. CRAM:This is a --
THE COURT:This is not a theater, Mr. Cram.
UNIDENTIFIED
VOICE:It certainly looks like a theater.
THE COURT:Any more outbursts and I am warning the people in the audience now, any more outbursts and not only will you be removed subsequently from this courtroom but you may face contempt proceedings.
UNIDENTIFIED
VOICE:It certainly looks like a theater.
THE COURT:Remove that man.
MR. CRAM:Why don't you lock them all up? Why don't you lock them all up?
THE COURT:Mr. Cram, are you going to return to the counsel table?
MR. CRAM:Are you going to remove all this army.
THE COURT: Mr. Cram --
MR. CRAM:Are you going to remove this army?
UNIDENTIFIED
VOICE:It's a three-ring circus.
MR. CRAM:I am going up amongst these guys.
THE COURT:I will hear this application.
MR. CRAM:You go right ahead. I will speak from here. I am making an adjournment application and Mr. Crossin said he was going to adjourn his application anyway. Right, Mr. Crossin? That is what you told me. I was told the injunction application against Mr. Crossin should be heard first.
THE COURT:I won't hear you, Mr. Cram, until you return to the counsel table.
MR. CRAM:Are you going to order these people to keep their hands off me?
THE COURT:They are not going to put their hands on you, Mr. Cram, until I tell them to do so.
MR. CRAM:When are you going to tell them, said the spider to the fly?
THE COURT:Mr. Cram, if you are not going to appear at the counsel table I will just hear Mr. Crossin.
MR. CRAM:I am not that foolish. I am just going to leave. Go ahead and have your charade. Go ahead and have your charade.
THE COURT:Mr. Sheriff, would you take Mr. Cram into custody.
THE REGISTRAR:Order in chambers.
It is obvious from the above that Mr. Justice Callaghan had not refused to continue to discuss with Mr. Cram the basis for his adjournment and further that in the event that an adjournment was not granted, he wished to hear all counsel, including Mr. Cram, on the merits of the application before him. However, Mr. Cram continued to make submissions from his standing position in the gallery and various members of the public were making insulting remarks toward the bench, based in part on their erroneous expectation as to the nature of the proceedings.
THE COURT:All I want you to do is to make a submission to me but I will hear the other side.
MR. CRAM:I have no trust in you.
THE COURT:That is unfortunate.
MR. CRAM:Because you should be disqualified.
This is an impossible situation for the court. Mr. Cram deliberately disobeyed the direction of the court to attend at the counsel table and make his submissions from there so that the proceedings could continue in an orderly and rational manner.
THE DEFENCE POSITION
I have considered fully counsel's submission for the defence in this matter. To state it succinctly, it is that although the order to remove Ms. Andres-Auger may have been properly made, the sheriffs improperly carried it out by seizing her, causing her to scream and rendering her great pain so that Mr. Cram's reaction to that circumstance was a reaction to the conduct of the sheriffs rather that to the order of the judge. Further, the submission continues, the sheriff's officers misunderstood the direction of the court and understood that she was to be arrested and taken into custody rather than be removed from the court and in these circumstances the reaction of Mr. Cram was a spontaneous reaction to the conduct of the sheriffs only, not to the court order.
Further, the words used by Mr. Cram to the public gallery cannot be taken as proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he urged the crowd to physically attack the sheriffs. Rather, this was a spontaneous outburst that did not call for physical interference and was an understandable reaction as to what he perceived was occurring to Ms. Andres-Auger whom, he believed was being brutally treated by the sheriffs.
With reference to what counsel referred to as the second count, where the court requested a number of times that the submissions made by Mr. Cram should be made from the counsel table, the defence submits that the refusal should not be interpreted as an absolute refusal but only as a conditional refusal and in the event that had the judge assured Mr. Cram that he would not be treated in the same way as Ms. Andres-Auger was treated, Mr. Cram would have come forward. In the alternative, his refusal was based on a fear that he would be man-handled by the sheriffs and in that the fear was for his own safety, it is a legitimate response to the request of the court.
I do not accept these submissions.
GENERAL REMARKS
I am alert to the attitude and perceptions that were held by the witnesses called by the defence who viewed the proceedings from their position in the public gallery. They came on the basis of an expectation instilled by the activities outside of the courtroom by Mr. Cram, either directly or indirectly by his public appearances and the various meetings to which he attended urging people to attend. They understood that the purpose of the hearing was to air allegations against the judiciary. As I mentioned at the opening, it was not the time and place for such allegations as they were wildly extravagant and could only be characterized as paranoid, not only in substance against the 5 or 6 specific justices against whom accusations were made but also in the generalization of these allegations to all members of the court to such an extent that, according to Mr. Cram, no process whatsoever could be carried on within the court precincts. I find that the purpose and objective of Mr. Cram before both Mr. Justice Catliff and Mr. Justice Callaghan was to turn the court process into a platform from which to make public allegations which were irrelevant to the proceedings before the court and to prejudice the rightful interest of the parties who were there to seek justice from the court.
CONCLUSION ON COUNT ONE
I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Cram is in contempt of court and did urge members of the public, including his supporters in the courtroom to physically attack the sheriff's officers. There can be no other inference from his activities as above described.
There was no brutal nor physical attack on Ms. Andres-Auger. She was the author of her own conduct and was not being brutalized by the sheriff in any way that was excessive given the extent of the resistance of her removal and in the circumstances in which those events developed.
The proceedings were exacerbated by Mr. Cram who had instilled in his supporters unreasonable expectation that this was the proper forum to hear his outrageous allegations against the judicial system.
CONCLUSION ON COUNT TWO
Mr. Cram had no reasonable expectation of harm from the sheriffs and had no excuse for not obeying the direction of the court to come to the counsel table rather than make submissions from his place in the audience.
The content of his attitude towards the court in his allegations towards the judiciary, in general, one could apply the language of Dubin, J.A. (now C.J.O.) in R. v. Kopyto (1987), 1987 CanLII 176 (ON CA), 62 O.R. (2d) 449 (headnote p. 453):
The suggestion that there was some overall conspiracy between the judiciary and police to deny a fair trial to the accused client or to all persons engaged in litigation where the police were involved is so preposterous that no right-thinking member of society would take it seriously.
In that case, which did not involve conduct in the face of the court, the court went on to find that it would give too much dignity to the statement of the accused to categorize it as one which would seriously threaten the administration of justice. But the statements before Catliff, J. and the argument sought to be made on Friday, April 22, 1994, were infinitely more preposterous and were designed to prevent the court from conducting its business. It involved the proposition that because of that conspiracy no case involving Mr. Cram could be heard until all the present judges resign, die or are impeached.
There is no question that judges may be criticized, so long as that criticism is carried out in good faith. The governing rule is set out by Lord Atkin in Ambard v. A.G. For Trinidad and Tobago (1936) 1936 CanLII 385 (UK JCPC), A.C. 322 at 334-35.
But whether the authority and position of an individual judge, or the due administration of justice, is concerned, no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in good faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way: the wrong headed are permitted to err therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism, and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men.
Further, as was said in R. v. Gray (1900) 2 Q.B. 36 at p. 40:
Judges and courts are alike open to criticism, and if reasonable argument or expostulation is offered against any judicial act as contrary to law or the public good, no Court could or would treat that as contempt of Court....
Strong criticism may also be healthy. It is perfectly lawful for anyone publicly to state emphatically that he disagrees with a judicial decision or with the practice of the court. It is not contempt to make uncomplimentary personal remarks out of court about a judge, even if untrue, subject of course to the law of defamation.
It is patently apparent that the right to criticize the conduct of individual judges and judicial decisions is firmly established, but there is an important distinction between contempt and criticism. When the conduct as in this case is clearly designed as an attack on the integrity of the court and its proceedings and involves a flagrant disobedience of its orders, it is in the nature of criminal contempt. In United Nurses of Alberta v. Alberta (A.G.) (1992) 1992 CanLII 99 (SCC), 1 S.C.R. 901 at p. 931, McLachlin J. drew the distinction between civil and criminal contempt:
A person who simply breaches a court order, for example by failing to abide by visiting hours stipulated in a child custody order, is viewed as having committed civil contempt. However, when the element of public defiance of the court's process in a way calculated to lessen societal respect for the courts is added to the breach, it becomes criminal.
Goodman J.A., speaking on behalf of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Regina v. Cohn (1984) 1984 CanLII 43 (ON CA), 13 D.L.R. (4th) 680 at 690 said:
...contempt in the face of the court consists of conduct which deliberately and in most cases publicly flouts the law and interferes with the due administration of justice. It has the characteristics of a criminal offence and constitutes a criminal matter.
The above outline of what took place on April 22, 1994 and before Mr. Justice Catliff on April 11, is necessary background. The ground of this contempt has been particularized as above. I must decide the case on this basis but in doing so, I cannot disregard the context created by Mr. Cram having most improperly used the hearing as a platform for making his allegations and stirring up his supporters. This conduct may well, itself, constitute contempt, but as I have said I must decide the case on its narrow particulars.
In all of the circumstances, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct of Mr. Cram refusing to abide by the direction of the court and in urging his supporters in the courtroom to physically attack the sheriffs, has been established and that the necessary elements of intention are present. I find and characterize his conduct as criminal contempt in the face of the court.
In conclusion, I cannot help but comment that this is not the Jack Cram I once knew and the person who enjoyed a different reputation in the courts. So far, no medical evidence has been tendered. I hope this oversight is remedied when submissions are made on the question of penalty.
"T.R. Braidwood, J."
Vancouver, B.C.,
July 8, 1994.
I guess it’s called peace, order and good government vs live free or die.
Unfortunately it seems we Canadians are more than willing to throw our hands up in resignation (apathy?) when the good government part goes missing.
See Peter Kelly, Mike Duffy, Richard Butts et al.
Sympathy to John Cram. He is right, Nova Scotia’s legal system is riddled with both low standards of competence and corruption. Funny stuff though.
Are… you being serious? Sympathy to Mr Cram?
How about sympathy to everyone with a legitimate complaint who had to wait for their day in court because of this clown? How about sympathy for the people Mr Cram sued who had done absolutely nothing wrong? How about sympathy for the administrators at every level of court who have their time wasted by people like Mr Cram, who is clearly lost in a self-perpetuating cycle of self-pity, anger and perceived intellectual superiority?
The Walrus just published a small article on vexatious litigants and the problems they cause that might serve as a companion piece to Justice Campbell’s decision: https://thewalrus.ca/sue-you-to-the-moon-and-back/?mc_cid=539b8017e7&mc_eid=79b7b37a34
Apologies, Mr McGrath, if you were being sarcastic regarding where your sympathies lie. Mr Cram gets no sympathy from me. I can always sympathize with a dog in pain, but as Justice Campbell notes, the dog’s issues got relegated to the back pages of Mr Cram’s legal manifestos rather quickly…
Oh no, I’m not being sarcastic. I’ve actually dealt with the bottomless incompetence of the Nova Scotia legal system personally. You got a problem with that? I’m sure there’s something the Internet you can read to make you feel better.
I have no sympathy for the system or it’s machinery, it deserves no such luxury.
I don’t know your own experience with the legal system, and I’m certainly not asking to hear about it, but it clearly didn’t go well. That’s too bad.
I’m not being sarcastic – ending up in court, whether you’re suing, being sued or even just a peripheral figure, is more often than not a frustrating experience.
Mr Cram, however, is gumming up the works for everyone else with nonsense claims and allegations rather than offering anything remotely helpful.
Meranwhile, up in the Arctic : https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/18/ice-scientists-arctic-ice-disappearing-reduce-emissions-peter-wadhams
” When in 1970 he joined the first of what would be more than 50 polar expeditions, the Arctic sea ice covered around 8m sq km at its September minimum. Today, it hovers at around 3.4m, and is declining by 13% a decade. In 30 years Wadhams has seen the Arctic ice thin by 40%, the world change colour at its top and bottom and the ice disappear in front of his eyes.
In a new book, published just as July 2016 is confirmed by Nasa as the hottest month ever recorded, this most experienced and rational scientist states what so many other researchers privately fear but cannot publicly say – that the Arctic is approaching a death spiral which may see the entire remaining summer ice cover collapse in the near future.”
Have a nice day …….while you can
That BC court decision on Cram is hilarious. But also sad.
two words, *delusional thinking,
The BC court decision is an interesting read. Given the judge’s final comment (“In conclusion, I cannot help but comment that this is not the Jack Cram I once knew and the person who enjoyed a different reputation in the courts. So far, no medical evidence has been tendered.”) clearly the judge felt he was mentally ill.
What must it be like to live with such a world view, such paranoia, and delusions? Sadly given the NS decision, it looks like he hasn’t gotten the help he needs. The issue here is why do we try to deal with health issues through the court system?
I can’t remember the hiking trails ever being closed due to fire hazard in New Brunswick. Maybe I just wasn’t paying attention. Luckily most people who hike don’t smoke.
I read one comment on a dog hiking FB page that was mildly critical of the hiking ban, commenter was given many ‘corrections’.
Cram is most likely suffering mental illness. If someone does know him, please do routine wellbeing checks for the sake of those pets, will ya?
I actually complained a great deal to friends and family about the travel ban. I use trails and woodland for travel to work at to see friends. I saw it as an attack on personal liberties for no real reason, I use a bicycle and my feet. It seemed it was targeting those who wished to not use a car or could not afford one. Even the rails to trails were closed which happens to be a good and safe way to travel to towns and cities. I had a hard time backing up my gripes but it seemed crazy to declare martial law, life doesn’t happen in cities, it just dies there.