THE CANADI AN ARREVI EW

LA REVUE DUBARREAU
CANADI EN

Vol . 81 August 2002 août No . 2

I NJUNCTI ONS - THE ABI LI TY TOBI ND

NON- PARTI ES

Jef f Ber r yman*

Wi ndsor

A t r adi t i onal r ul e of chancer y pr act i ce has been t hat onl y par t i es t o an act i on ar e
bound t o obey any i nj unct i on gr ant ed as a r emedy i n t he pr oceedi ngs . However ,
non- par t i es ar e r equi r ed t o obey a cour t or der t hat t hey ar e made awar e of on pai n
of bei ng ci t ed f or cont empt i n t hat t hey have ei t her ai ded or abet t ed a named
def endant , or have i nt er f er ed and i mpeded t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce. I n t hi s
r espect , Canadi an cour t s demonst r at e a mor e wi l l i ngpr opensi t y t han t hei r Uni t ed
Ki ngdomcount er par t s t o hol d non- par t i es l i abl ef or cont empt . Thi s r esul t s i n t he
l oss of many pr ocedur al saf eguar ds nor mal l y gr ant ed named def endant s i n any
pr oceedi ngs . -I n t hi spaper , t he aut hor ar guesf or caut i on i n movi ng di r ect l y t o hol d
non- par t i es l i abl e f or cont empt and t hat a bet t er appr oach woul d be t o r egul ar i ze
t he posi t i on of non- par t i es by br i ngi ng t hem i nt o t he pr oceedi ng t hr ough t he use
of ei t her a r epr esent at i ve def endant act i on, or , i ncor por at i on wi t hi n t he John and
Jane Doe st yl e of cause .

Sel on une r ègl e de pr at i que t r adi t i onnel l e des Cour s de chancel l er i e, seul es l es
par t i es à une act i on sont t enues d' obéi r à une i nj onct i on quel conque pr ononcée
dans des pr océdur es . Tout ef oi s, des per sonnes aut r es que l es par t i es sont t enues,
sous pei ne d' out r age au t r i bunal , d' obéi r à un or dr e de l a cour dont el l es ont
connai ssance quand el l es ai dent ou encour agent un déf endeur nommé dans l e
j ugement à vi ol er cel ui - ci , ou encor e quand el l es i nt er f èr ent avec ouf ont obst acl e
à l ' admi ni st r at i on de l a j ust i ce . À cet égar d, l es t r i bunaux canadi ens,
compar at i vement aux t r i bunaux du Royaume- Uni , f ont pr euve d' une pl us gr ande
pr opensi on à condamner pour out r age des per sonnes aut r es que l es par t i es . En
conséquence, , el l es per dent pl usi eur s mesur es de pr ot ect i on au pl an pr océdur al
dont bénéf i ci ent nor mal ement l es déf endeur s nommés dans t out e pr océdur e. Dans
cet ar t i cl e, l ' aut eur sout i ent qu' i l f aut êt r e pr udent dans l a condamnat i on pour
out r age de per sonnes aut r es que l es par t i es ; une mei l l eur e appr oche consi st er ai t

* Jef f Ber r yman, of t he Facul t y of Law, Uni ver si t y of Wi ndsor , Wi ndsor , Ont ar i o.
I wi sh t o t hank my r esear ch st udent s, Rober t Mul l an and Gemma Symt h, f or t hei r most
hel pf ul assi st ance, and my col l eague Geor ge St ewar t f or hi s counsel i n pr epar i ng t hi s
ar t i cl e .
208 LA REVUE DU BARREAUCANADI EN [ VO1 . 81

à r égul ar i ser l a si t uat i on de ces per sonnes en- l es i nt r odui sant dans l a pr océdur e
soi t au moyen d' un déf endeur - r epr ésent ant , soi t en l es i ncor por ant dans l a
dési gnat i on des par t i es, comme Jean et Jeannet t e Ber t r and.

I nt r oduct i on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
Engl i sh Hi st or i cal Devel opment of t he Canon t hat Onl y a Par t y t o an
I nj unct i on Or der i s Bound by i t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Recent Devel opment s i n t he Uni t ed Ki ngdom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Devel opment s i n Canada of t he Canon t hat Onl y a Par t y t o an
I nj unct i on Or der i s Bound by i t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
V. The Supr eme Cour t of Canada Deci si on i n MacMi l l an Bl oedel v.
Si ni pson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
VI . Anal ysi s and Obser vat i ons of MacMi l l an Bl oedel v . Si mpson . . . . . . 229
VI I . Repr esent at i ve Def endant Act i ons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
VI I I . John and Jane Doe Or der s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
I X. Concl usi on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

I . I nt r oduct i on

I t i s axi omat i c t hat an i nj unct i on cannot be made agai nst t he wor l d at l ar ge, one
t hat i s cont r a mundum.. The cor ol l ar y of t hi s axi omi s t hat onl y a par t y t o an
i nj unct i ve or der i s bound by i t . Never t hel ess, t her e ar e si t uat i ons i n whi ch an
appl i cant bel i eves i t i s desi r abl e t o cast an i nj unct i on i n wi der t er ms so t hat non-
par t i es ar e caught wi t hi n i t s par amet er s, f or exampl e, t he act i ons of i ndust r i al
pi cket er sI or envi r onment al pr ot est er s 2 who wi sh t o di sr upt and hal t t he
commer ci al act i vi t i es of a pl ai nt i f f . Or , t he pl ai nt i f f may wi sh t o seek an Ant on
Pi l l er or der t o sear ch and sei ze i nf r i ngi ng i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y bei ng sol d by
t r ansi ent and i t i ner ant f l ea- mar ket and st r eet vendor s . 3 Yet anot her exampl e
may be t he pl ai nt i f f ' s desi r e t o pr event t he di scl osur e of conf i dent i al i nf or mat i on
by t he news medi a and any ot her s who mi ght be di sposed t owar d publ i shi ng t he
mat er i al . 4 I n al l t hese exampl es t he pl ai nt i f f may k now t he i dent i t y of some
def endant s, be t hey uni on or envi r onment al l eader s, st r eet vendor s or news
medi a publ i sher s, and may br i ng sui t agai nst t hem di r ect l y, but of t en, t he
pl ai nt i f f wi l l not know t he i dent i t y of many ot her s who ei t her ar r i ve t o suppor t
t he pi cket or pr ot est , sel l i nf r i ngi ng mer chandi se, or publ i sh conf i dent i al
mat er i al .

I I nt er nat i onal Longshor emen' s Associ at i on, Local 273 v . Mar i t i me Empl oyer s'
Associ at i on. [ 197911 S. C. R. 120.
z MacMi l l an Bl oedel Lt d. v . Si mpson , [ 1996] 2 S. C. R. 1048 .
3 Mont r es Rol ex S. A. v . Bal shi n, [ 1993] I F. C. 236 ( C. A. ) .
4 Venabl es v . News Gr oup Newspaper s Lt d. , [ 2001] 2 W . L. R. 1038 ( Fam. Di v. ) .
20021 I nj unct i ons - The Abi l i t y t o Bi nd Non- Par t i es 209

Cour t s have r esponded i n essent i al l y t wo ways t o a pl ai nt i f f ' s r equest s f or

br oader i nj unct i ve r el i ef . One way has been t o expand on who i s act ual l y
capt ur ed as adef endant i npr oceedi ngs . Exampl es of t hi s appr oach ar epr oceedi ngs
br ought agai nst a named def endant as r epr esent at i ve of a cl ass, and t he use of
t he f i ct i t i ous John and Jane Doe appel l at i on . The second way has been t o
advance t he not i on t hat a per son, al t hough not named i n a cour t or der , i s,
never t hel ess, bound t o obser ve i t on pai n of bei ng f ound gui l t y of cont empt .
Thi s ar t i cl e seeks t o expl or e t he devel opment of t he cont empt pr oceedi ng
agai nst non- par t i es i n Canada wi t hpassi ng r ef er ence t o devel opment s el sewher e,
par t i cul ar l y i n t he Uni t ed Ki ngdom. I ar gue t hat t hose Canadi an devel opment s,
encour aged by t he Supr eme Cour t of Canada, have r esul t ed i n an appr eci abl e
l oss of ci vi l pr ocedur al r i ght s by non- par t i es . Thi s does not necessar i l y have t o
be so . Thr ough t he use of r epr esent at i ve def endant act i ons, and t he John and
Jane Doe appel l at i on, a bal ance can be mai nt ai ned bet ween l i t i gant s' i nt er est s
wi t hout vi ol at i ng an i mpor t ant l egal canon: t hat onl y par t i es t o an act i on ar e
bound by t he i nj unct i on.

I I . Engl i sh Hi st or i cal Devel opment of t he Canon t hat onl y a Par t y

t o an I nj unct i on Or der i s Bound by i t

Thenot i on t hat onl y par t i es t o an act i on ar eboundby t he cour t ' s or der has al ong
pedi gr ees At i t s r oot t hi s r ul e embodi es t he pr i nci pl e t hat an i ndi vi dual has a
r i ght t o be hear d bef or e bei ng condemned, audi al t er ampar t em. Hi st or i cal l y,
andwi t h r espect t o i nj unct i ons, t he r ul e i s sai d t o be der i ved f r omt he j udgment
of Lor d El don i n I veson v . Har r i s . 6 That act i on ar ose f or a commi t t al f or
cont empt of apr ohi bi t i on or der i ssued by t heChancer y Cour t agai nst pr oceedi ngs
br ought i n t he Mar shal sea Cour t . The al l eged cont empt was t he cont i nued
pr oceedi ng t o enf or ce a bai l bond t hat had been i ssued t o secur e per f or mance
of a cont r act . Whi l e t he i ni t i al cont r act had been t he subj ect of t he pr ohi bi t i on
or der , t he or der di d not cover t he r i ght s under t he bai l bond. Lor d El don hel d t hat
no cont empt had been made out . The l i nk bet ween bei ng hear d, and t hus made
subj ect t o an or der , i s cl ear i n t he j udgment :

. . . . I have no concept i on, t hat i t i s compet ent t o t hi s Cour t t o hol d a man bound by an
i nj unct i on, who i s not apar r y i n t he causef or t he pur pose of t hecause. Theol dpr act i ce,
was t hat he must be br ought i nt o Cour t , so as accor di ng t o t he anci ent l aws andusages
of t he count r y be made a subj ect of t he wr i t . 7

5 Seet he comment s of St amp J . i n Re WykehamEst at e, [ 197111 Ch . 204 at 208, and

t he di ssent i ng j udgment of Wood J. A. i n MacMi l l an Bl oedel Lt d. v. Si mpson ( 1994) , 118
D. L . R. ( 4t h) 1 ( B. C. C. A. ) at 31, af f d supr a not e 2 . A cor ol l ar y i n ear l y Chancer y pr act i ce
was t he r ul e t hat al l par t i es who had an i nt er est i n pr oceedi ngs had t o be pr esent or
r epr esent ed so as t o ef f ect compl et e j ust i ce . See G. Hazar d, " I ndi spensabl e Par t y: The
Hi st or i cal Or i gi n of a Pr ocedur al Phant om" ( 1961) 61 Col umbi a L. Rev . 1254.
6 ( 1802) 7 Ves . Jun. 252 ( Ch . ) , 32 E. R. 102 .
I bi d. at 256- 7 .
210 THECANADI AN BARREVI EW [ Vol . 81

Ther e wer e ot her r easons f or t he r ul e as wel l . Because equi t y act s onl y i n

per sonam, an i nj unct i on made agai nst t he wor l d at l ar ge t ook on t he i ndi ci a of
an i n r ei n or der and t hus exceeded equi t y' s t r adi t i onal j ur i sdi ct i onal boundar i es .
The r ei f i cat i on of t he i n per sonamj ur i sdi ct i on was an i mpor t ant di st i nct i on
bet ween j udi ci al and l egi sl at i ve f unct i ons as wel l as bet ween c ommon l aw and
chancer y cour t s . Equi t y act ed on t he consci ence of t he i ndi vi dual al one t o pur ge
hi s wr ongdoi ng . I n addi t i on, hi st or i cal l y t he r ol e of i nj unct i ons was much mor e
ci r cumscr i bed t han t oday . Pr i or t o t he Judi cat ur e Act s Snel l suggest ed onl y t wo
cl asses of i nj unct i on : t hose i ssued t o pr event t he cont i nuance of i nequi t abl e
j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs, and t hose i ssued t o r est r ai n wr ongf ul act s, nar r owl y
def i ned as bei ng ei t her br each of cont r act or a t or t s Thi s l i mi t ed j ur i sdi ct i on
was unl i kel y t o pr ovi de muc h oppor t uni t y t o capt ur e l ar ge number s of non-
par t i es wi t hi n t he t er ms of an or der .
The r ul e t hat onl y t hose par t i es t o t he i nj unct i on wer e bound by i t br ought
a qui ck r esponse by some ent er pr i si ng l i t i gant s who sought t o have t hei r agent s
or ser vant s per f or mwhat t hey wer e f or bi dden t o do by t he i nj unct i on . Nat ur al l y,
t hi s br ought an equal l y swi f t r esponse f r omt he cour t s . I n Lor d Wel l esl ey v . The
Ear l of Mor ni ngt on 9 an i nj unct i on was gr ant ed r est r ai ni ng t he def endant f r om
cut t i ng t i mber . The i nj unct i on had been i n t he name of t he def endant excl usi vel y,
and he had i nst r uct ed hi s agent t o cut t he t i mber i nst ead. The pl ai nt i f f br ought
a mot i on f or commi t t al f or cont empt agai nst t he agent . Thi s act i on was r ej ect ed
by Lor d Langdal e M. R. on t he basi s t hat t he i nj unct i on coul d not bi nd an
unnamed par t y . However , Lor d Langdal e suggest ed t hat an act i on coul d be
br ought f or cont empt of cour t agai nst one who, wi t h knowl edge, ai ded and
assi st ed t he named def endant t o br each t he i nj unct i on . I n a subsequent act i on,
t he pl ai nt i f f br ought such a mot i on agai nst t he ser vant who was t hen f ound
gui l t y of cont empt , al t hough t hi s t i me Lor d Langdal e used t he ver b
` i nt er meddl i ng' t o descr i bed t he accused' s conduct . I t i s i mpor t ant t o not e i n t he
j udgment t hat mer el y changi ng t he t er ms of t he i nj unct i on t o i ncl ude bot h t he
named def endant and hi s ` agent s or ser vant s' woul d not be enough t o cur e t he
def ect i n t he pl ai nt i f f ' s or i gi nal act i on . The onl y way t he unnamed par t y coul d
be hel d i n cont empt was f or hi s ai di ng and abet t i ng, and not f or a vi ol at i on of
t he i nj unct i on i t sel f of whi ch he was never a par t y .
The deci si on i n Lor d Wel l esl ey v . The Ear l of Mor ni ngt onJO was l at er
f ol l owed i n Seawar d v . Pat er son . I I The pl ai nt i f f had successf ul l y gai ned an

8 See f or exampl e i n E. Snel l , Pr i nci pl es of Equi t y, 12t h ed . ( 1898) at 642 et . seq .

9 ( 1848) , 11 Beav . 180 ( Ch. ) , 50 E. R. 786. See al so Aver y v . Andr ews ( 1882) , L. J .
51 N. S . ( Ch. ) 414. I nj unct i on pr ohi bi t i ng t r ust ees f r omdi sposi ng of cer t ai n asset s . Thr ee
ol d t r ust ees bei ng r epl aced by t hr ee newt r ust ees who cl ai med t hey wer e not bound by t he
i nj unct i on . Cour t hel d t hat t he t hr ee newt r ust ees had knowl edge of t he or der and wer e t hus
gui l t y of cont empt . And see Lewes v . Mor gan ( 1818) , 5 Pr i ce 518 ( Exch. ) , 146 E. R. 681.
Upon an or der pr ohi bi t i ng t he def endant f r omr ecei vi ng r ent s, t he def endant ' s sol i ci t or t hen
st ar t ed t o r ecei ve t he r ent s i n hi s pl ace . The sol i ci t or was hel d t o be i n cont empt wher e he
had not i ce of t he i nj unct i on and knowl edge t hat hi s act i vi t i es vi ol at ed t he Cour t ' s or der .
t o I bi d.
11 [ 189711 Ch 545 ( C. A. ) .
2002) I nj unct i ons - The Abi l i t y t o Bi nd Non- Par t i es 21 1

i nj unct i on agai nst t he def endant Pat er son, hi s agent s and ser vant s, r equi r i ng t he
def endant t o r ef r ai n f r om cr eat i ng a di st ur bance i n pr emi ses abut t i ng t he
pl ai nt i f f ' s pr emi ses . The def endant cont i nued t o r un boxi ng f i ght s i n vi ol at i on
of t he i nj unct i on. The pl ai nt i f f t hen br ought commi t t al pr oceedi ngs agai nst t he
def endant , hi s ser vant Sheppar d, who had act ed as ` mast er of cer emoni es' , and
hur r ay, a spect at or and col l abor at or i n r unni ng t he boxi ng bout s . The t r i al j udge
had f ound al l t hr ee gui l t y of cont empt . The def endant was gui l t y of di r ect br each
of t he i nj unct i on, whi l e Sheppar d and hur r ay wer e gui l t y of ai di ng and abet t i ng
t he def endant . Mur r ay appeal ed . The j udges of t he Cour t of Appeal wer e
unani mous i n seei ng no mer i t i n t he appeal . Li ndl ey L . J . :

A mot i on t o commi t a man f or br each of an i nj unct i on, whi ch i s t echni cal l y wr ong
unl ess he i s bound by t he i nj unct i on, i s one t hi ng; and a mot i on t o commi t a man f or
cont empt of Cour t , not because he i s bound by t he i nj unct i on by bei ng a par t y t o t he
cause, but because he i s conduct i ng hi msel f so as t o obst r uct t he cour se of j ust i ce, i s
anot her and a t ot al l y di f f er ent t hi ng. The di f f er ence i s ver y mar ked. I n t he one case t he
par t y who i s bound by t he i nj unct i on i s pr oceeded agai nst f or t he pur pose of enf or ci ng
t he or der of t he Cour t f or t he benef i t of t he per son who got i t . I n t he ot her case t he Cour t
wi l l not al l ow i t s pr ocess t o be set at naught and t r eat ed wi t h cont empt . . . . The
di st i nct i on bet ween t he t wo ki nds of cont empt i s per f ect l y wel l known, al t hough i n
some cases t her e may be a l i t t l e di f f i cul t y i n sayi ng on whi ch si de of t he l i ne a case
f al l s . 12

And by Ri gby L. J .

I t i s qui t e r i ght , no doubt , t hat when a pr ohi bi t i on or an i nj unct i on i s gr ant ed t he Cour t

shoul d be car ef ul t o see howf ar i t ext ends ; and t hat i t s meani ng wi t h r ef er ence t o t he
i nj unct i on shoul d not be over st epped, and peopl e be br ought i n as t hough t hey wer e
pr ohi bi t ed or enj oi ned, when t he Cour t never dr eamt of pr ohi bi t i ng or enj oi ni ng
t hem. . . . That t her e i s aj ur i sdi ct i on t o puni sh f or cont empt of Cour t i s undoubt ed . I t has
been exer ci sed f or a ver y l ong t i me - f or l onger t han any of us can r emember - and
i t i s a puni t i ve j ur i sdi ct i on f ounded upon t hi s, t hat i t i s f or t he good, not of t he pl ai nt i f f
or of any par t y t o t he act i on, but of t he publ i c, t hat t he or der s of Cour t shoul d not be
di sr egar ded, and t hat peopl e shoul d not be per mi t t ed t o assi st i n t he br each of t hose
or der s i n what i s pr oper l y cal l ed cont empt of Cour t . 13

Anumber of obser vat i ons on t hese hi st or i cal f oundat i ons can be made . Fi r st , t he
r ul e t hat onl y t hose named i n an i nj unct i on ar e bound by i t di r ect l y has an al most
sacr ed qual i t y . I ncl udi ng i ndi vi dual s wi t hi n t he t er ms of t he or der , as i n agent s
or ser vant s, di d not make t hemdi r ect l y l i abl e under t he i nj unct i on wher e t hey
had not been par t i es t o t he di sput e . The r i ght t o be hear d bef or e bei ng made
subj ect t o an or der was hi ghl y val ued . Second, al l t hese cases i nvol ved
per manent i nj unct i ons or pr ohi bi t i ons and not i nt er l ocut or y pr oceedi ngs . The
cour t had det er mi ned t he subst ant i ve r i ght s and t hus t her e was no oppor t uni t y
f or a non- par t y t o be added t o t he l i t i gat i on. Thi r d, any r et i cence i n hol di ng non-
par t i es l i abl e t o obey t he i nj unct i on di r ect l y was qui ckl y compensat ed by a

12
I bi d. at 553- 54.
13
I bi d. at 558 .
212 LA REVUEDU BARREAU CANADI EN [ VOI . 81

wi l l i ngness t o advance cont empt pr oceedi ngs agai nst t he same i ndi vi dual f or
ai di ng and abet t i ng br each by a named par t y or , f or var yi ng degr ees of
i nt er meddl i ng . Many of t he r epor t ed cases deal wi t h t he ext ent t o whi ch t he
per sons agai nst whomt he commi t t al pr oceedi ngs wer e br ought had not i ce of
t he cour t ' s i nj unct i on. 14 Fi nal l y, t he di ct a of Li ndl ey and Ri gby LJJ . i n
Seawar d v . Pat er son al l uded t o a wi der j ur i sdi ct i on t han ai di ng, abet t i ng, or
i nt er meddl i ng, and t hat was obst r uct i ng t he cour se of j ust i ce and br i ngi ng t he
cour t ' s aut hor i t y i nt o di sr eput e .

I I I . Recent Devel opment s i n t he Uni t ed Ki ngdom

The hi st or i cal posi t i on had, unt i l t he l ast decade, r emai ned r emar kabl y st abl e i n
commonweal t h c ommon l aw j ur i sdi ct i ons . I n t he Uni t ed Ki ngdom cour t s
af f i r med Lor d El don' s di ct a on f r equent occasi ons . I n Mar engo v . Dai l y Sket ch
and Sunday Gr aphi c Lt d. Lor d Ut hwat t , f or t he House of Lor ds, spent some t i me
expl ai ni ng t hat an i nj unct i on gr ant ed agai nst " t he def endant ' s, t hei r st af f
ser vant s and agent s" coul d not bi nd t he st af f , ser vant s or agent s di r ect l y because
t hey wer e not par t i es t o t he act i on. Never t hel ess, t hey coul d be f ound i n
cont empt i f t hey ai ded and abet t ed t he def endant . Lor d Ut hwat t was cr i t i cal of
t he wor di ng of t he or der i n suggest i ng t he f or mer wher e cl ear l y no l i abi l i t y coul d
l i e . However , he al so opi ned t hat i t was " desi r abl e t o mar k t he ampl i t ude of t he
or der by i ncl udi ng i n i t some r ef er ence" t o t hose who coul d be caught by
cont empt i ndi r ect l y f or ai di ng and abet t i ng . To t hi s end he r ecommended
adopt i on of al t er nat i ve wor di ng ; " def endant s, by t hei r ser vant s wor kmen agent s
or ot her wi se" . 15
I n Z Lt d. v. A- Z and AA- LL t he Engl i sh Cour t of Appeal had t o det er mi ne
whet her a Mar eva i nj unct i on woul d bi nd t hi r d- par t y banks not named i n t he

14
For exampl e, i n Seawar d v . Pat er son, i bi d Mur r ay ar gued t hat he was a mer e
spect at or and had not been pr esent when t he cour t i ssued i t s i nj unct i on, al t hough he had
been pr esent when t he pr oceedi ngs commenced and was i nt er est ed i n t hei r out come . I n
Lewes v. Mor gan, supr a not e 8, Bar on Wood di ssent ed f r omt he ot her t wo j udges on t he
poi nt t hat t he def endant accused of cont empt had r ecei ved i nsuf f i ci ent not i ce of t he
i nj unct i on . I n par t i cul ar , Bar on Wood consi der ed a newspaper account of t he pr oceedi ngs
f or a pr ohi bi t i on i nsuf f i ci ent not i ce of t he cour t ' s or der t o hol d t he def endant l i abl e f or
ai di ng and abet t i ng i n a br each of t he or der .
15
[ 194811 Al l . E. R. 406 at 407 ( H. L. ) , see al so Ranson v . Pl at t , [ 1911] 1 K. B. 499 .
The cor ol l ar y of t hi s namel y t he l i abi l i t y of a cor por at e def endant f or t he act i ons of i t s
agent s and empl oyees has been deal t wi t h i n Re Suppl y of Ready Mi xed Concr et e ( No. 2) ,
[ 1995] 1 A. C. 456 ( H. L. ) . An or der had been gi ven by t he Rest r i ct i ve Pr act i ces Cour t
r est r ai ni ng t he def endant cor por at i ons f r oment er i ng i nt o pr i ce f i xi ng agr eement s . I n spi t e
of i nst r uct i ons havi ng been made t o l ocal manager s t o r ef r ai n f r omsuch act i vi t y, a number
cont i nued t o do so . I n cont empt pr oceedi ngs t he cor por at e def endant s wer e hel d l i abl e f or
cont empt . Di r ect i nf r i ngement of t he cour t ' s or der di d not r equi r e i nt ent i on on par t of t he
empl oyer t o di sobey . The empl oyer coul d be hel d vi car i ousl y l i abl e f or t he act i ons of t he
empl oyees wher e t hey wer e act i ng wi t hi n t he scope of t hei r empl oyment . And see C. J .
Mi l l er , Cont empt of Cour t , 3r d ed. ( Oxf or d : Oxf or d Uni ver si t y Pr ess, 2000) at 14 . 83 .
2002] I nj unct i ons - The Abi l i t y t o Bi nd Non- Par t i es 21 3

or i gi nal or der but who had been gi ven not i ce of t he i nj unct i on r est r ai ni ng t he
r emoval of t he def endant ' s asset s away f r om, t he cour t ' s j ur i sdi ct i on . Thi s i ssue
was c ompounded by t he f act t hat at t he t i me t he banks wer e gi ven not i ce of . t he
or der t he def endant had not yet been ser ved. The t hi r d- par t y banks ar gued t hat
t hey coul d not be sai d t o be ai di ng and abet t i ng t he def endant , and t her ef or e not
gui l t y of cont empt of cour t , unt i l such t i me as t he def endant r ecei ved not i ce of
t he i nj unct i on and was t hen enj oi ned . Lor d Denni ng M . R. met t hi s ar gument by
suggest i ng t hat t he Mar ev a j ur i sdi ct i on oper at ed i n r em and t hus bound t he
. 16 Thi s ar gument
t hi r d- par t y f r omt hemoment t he or der was i ssued by t he cour t
had been pr evi ousl y r ef ut ed i n Cr et anor Mar i t i me Co. Lt d. v. I r i sh Mar i ne
17 However , Ever l ei gh L. J . , ci t i ng Seawar d v . Pat er son, 18
Management Lt d.
met t he ar gument by poi nt i ng out t hat t hebanks wer e l i abl e f or cont empt i n t hei r
own r i ght f or knowi ngl y i nt er f er i ng wi t h t he cour se of j ust i ce r at her t han f or
ai di ng and abet t i ng t he def endant .

I n 1992 t he Hous e of Lor ds was af f or ded an oppor t uni t y t o addr ess di r ect l y
t he l i abi l i t y of non- par t i es f or cont empt i n A. - G. v . Ti mes Newspaper s Lt d. 19
Thi s case was one of many deal i ng wi t h t he publ i cat i on by Mr . Pet er Wr i ght ,
a f or mer Br i t i sh secur i t y ser vi ce empl oyee, of hi s book Spycat cher . The act i on
was br ought by t he At t or ney- Gener al t o r est r ai n a number of newspaper s f r om
publ i shi ng ser i al i sat i ons of t he book i n t he Uni t ed Ki ngdom. The t hr ee mai n
aspect s of t he case wer e pr ess f r eedomand pr i or r est r ai nt , whet her t he l aw of
conf i dences appl i ed t o gover nment empl oyees agai nst a backgr ound of wi de
di ssemi nat i on of t he book i n ot her j ur i sdi ct i ons, and under what ci r cumst ances
an i nj unct i on coul d appl y t o non- par t i es . The f i r st t wo aspect s of t he case have
been wi del y di scussed by ot her s. 20 On t he l ast i ssue t he quest i on bef or e t he
cour t was whet her non- par t i es who had knowl edge of an i nj unct i on i ssued
agai nst ot her newspaper s, and whi ch enj oi ned t hemf r ompubl i shi ng par t s of Mr
Wr i ght ' s book unt i l such t i me as t he i ssue of t he cr own' s cl ai mf or br each of
conf i dent i al i t y had been det er mi ned, wer e gui l t y of cont empt of cour t when
t hey subsequent l y publ i shed a ser i al i sat i on of t he book .

The appel l ant s won i n t he t r i al cour t , al t hough t hi s was r ever sed on appeal .
Bef or e t he Hous e of Lor ds t he appel l ant s vi gor ousl y ar gued t hat a non- par t y
coul d onl y be hel d i n cont empt of cour t wher e t hey had knowi ngl y ai ded and
abet t ed t he named def endant i n br eachi ng t he or der and t hat t her e was no ot her
cont empt j ur i sdi ct i on agai nst non- par t i es . Thus, t he cour t conf r ont ed t he
pr eci se bounds of t he cont empt j ur i sdi ct i on and what was cover ed i n t henot i on

i s [ 1982] Q. B. 558 at 573 ( C. A. ) .

17
[ 1978] 3 Al l E. R. 164 ( C. A. ) .
i s Supr a not e 16 at 578- 79.
19
[ 1992] 1 A. C. 191 .
20 See A. - G. v . Guar di an Newspaper s ( No. 2) , [ 1990] 1 A. C. 109 ( H. L . ) , See R. G.

Hammond, " The Wr i ght Case - Wr ong Answer ?" ( 1989) 4 T. P. J . 87, and P. Bi r ks, " A
Li f el ong Obl i gat i on of Conf i dence" ( 1989) 105 L. Q. R. 501. See al so t he case bef or e t he
Eur opean Commi ssi on on Human Ri ght s, Ti mes Newspaper s Lt d. and Nei l v . Uni t ed
Ki ngdom( 1991) , 73 Eur . Comm. H. R. D. R. 41 .
214 THE CANADI AN BAR REVI EW [ Vol . 81

of ` i mpedi ng or pr ej udi ci ng t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce by t he cour t ' i n

pr oceedi ngs br ought bet ween t he named l i t i gant s . The appel l ant s conceded t hat
t hey wer e awar e of t he i nj unct i on, and t hat t hey had i nt ended by t hei r publ i cat i on
t o i mpede t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce . The ef f ect of publ i cat i on was t o dest r oy
t he subj ect mat t er of t he l i t i gat i on and t o r ender t he At t or ney- Gener al ' s cl ai m
f or conf i dent i al i t y of t he Wr i ght i nf or mat i on poi nt l ess . The At t or ney- Gener al
had not al l eged any l i nkage bet ween t he named def endant s and t he appel l ant s
who wer e compet i t or s, as such, t her e was no i ssue of ai di ng and abet t i ng . Thus,
t he appel l ant s ar gued t hat t hey had not commi t t ed t he act us r ei l s of t he cont empt
i n t hat t her e was no cont empt f or i mpedi ng t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce by a
non- par t y . On t hi s quest i on t he Lor ds wer e unani mous t hat t he appel l ant s wer e
wr ong and wer e i ndeed gui l t y of cont empt .
Al l t he Lor ds' j udgment s f ol l ow a si mi l ar pat t er n of r easoni ng . Fi r st , t hey
r ecogni ze i n t he ear l i er Engl i sh aut hor i t i es a di st i nct i on bet ween cont empt f or
br eachi ng an i nj unct i on as a named par t y and cont empt by anon- par t y f or ai di ng
and abet t i ng . Second, t hey r ecogni ze t hat i n ear l i er deci si ons t he cour t s f ound
i n cont empt t hose who knowi ngl y i nt er f er e wi t h t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce .
However , t her e was l i t t l e unani mi t y on when i nt er f er ence occur s . Lor d Br andon
st at ed:

I t seems t o me, as a mat t er of pr i nci pl e t hat , i f C' s conduct , i n knowi ngl y doi ng act s
whi ch woul d, i f done by B, be a br each of t he i nj unct i on agai nst hi m, r esul t s i n
i mpedance t o or i nt er f er ence wi t h t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce by t he cour t i n t he
act i on bet ween A and B, t hen, so f ar as t he quest i on of C' s conduct bei ng cont empt
of cour t i s concer ned, i t cannot make any di f f er ence whet her such conduct t akes t he
f or mof ai di ng and abet t i ng B on t he one hand or act i ng sol el y of hi s own vol i t i on on
t he ot her . ' 1

Thi s appr oach woul d t end t o l ook onl y at r esul t s . I f t he net ef f ect of C' s conduct
i s t o do what B was enj oi ned f r omdoi ng, t hen Ci s gui l t y of cont empt r egar dl ess
of any l egi t i mat e r i ght C may have f or car r yi ng out t he ver y conduct t hat B
cannot . 22

21 Supr a not e 19 at 206 .

22
That t hi s was t he i nt ended r esul t of Lor d Br andon can be assumed f r omcomment s
made ear l i er i n hi s j udgment at , i bi d. 206 wher e he gi ves t he f ol l owi ng exampl e:
Suppose t hat t her e i s an act i on bet ween A and B i n whi ch B cl ai ms, but A di sput es,
t hat B i s ent i t l ed t o demol i sh A' s house and t hat i n t hat act i on t he cour t gr ant s A an
i nt er l ocut or y i nj unct i on r est r ai ni ng B f r om demol i shi ng A' s house pendi ng t he t r i al
of t he act i on. Suppose f ur t her t hat C, of hi s own vol ut i on and i n no way ai di ng or
abet t i ng B, hi msel f demol i shes A' s house whi l e t he act i on bet ween A and B i s st i l l
pendi ng. On t hese f act s C woul d, i n my opi ni on, be commi t t i ng a cont empt of cour t ,
because he woul d be knowi ngl y i mpedi ng or i nt er f er i ng wi t h t he admi ni st r at i on of
j ust i ce by t he cour t i n t he act i on bet ween A and B.
. . . . . t he t est f or deci di ng whet her Chas commi t t ed a cont empt of cour t i s whet her Chas
by hi s conduct knowi ngl y i mpeded or i nt er f er ed wi t h t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce by
t he cour t i n t he act i on bet ween A and B.
2002] I nj unct i ons - The Abi l i t y t o Bi nd Non- Par t i es 21 5

Lor d Jauacey was mor e ci r cumspect and acknowl edgedi n t hepr i nci pl e j ust
gi ven t hat t her e " may be cases wher e t he per f ect l y l egi t i mat e pur sui t of a
pur pose by a st r anger has t hei nci dent al r esul t of f r ust r at i ng an or der . I t does not
i nevi t abl y f ol l ow t hat such pur sui t wi l l const i t ut e cont empt . " He al so suggest ed
t hat i t was l i kel y onl y i n a l i mi t ed number of cases, " t hat i ndependent act i on by
a t hi r d par t y wi l l have t he ef f ect of i nt er f er i ng wi t h t he oper at i on of an or der t o
whi ch he i s not a par t y . " 23
Lor d Ol i ver saw l i t t l e val ue i n cat al ogui ng hypot het i cal ci r cumst ances
whi ch showed when t he l i ne of i nt er f er ence i n t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce was
cr ossed. Rat her , he si gnal l ed t he i mpor t ance t hat t he act i vi t y of t he non- par t y,
" f r ust r at es, t hwar t s, or subver t s t he pur pos e of t he cour t ' s or der and t her eby
i nt er f er es wi t ht he due admi ni st r at i on of j ust i cei nt hepar t i cul ar act i on" [ emphasi s
i n t he or i gi nal ] 24 ` Pur pose' her e r ef er s t o t he cour t ' s obj ect i ve i n seeki ng t o
admi ni st er j ust i cebet ween t hel i t i gant s, whi ch, on t he f act s bef or e t hecour t , was
t o pr eser ve i n t he i nt er i m t he conf i dent i al i t y of t he cr own' s i nf or mat i on .
However , Lor d Ol i ver di d go on t o deal wi t h some of t he par t i cul ar obj ect i ons
t he appel l ant s had r ai sed. Fi r st , he acknowl edged t hat a st r anger t o l i t i gat i on
coul d wel l be advanci ng hi s or her own i nt er est but , never t hel ess, dest r oy t he
subst r at a of t he act i on bet ween t he namedl i t i gant s ; yet , t hi s di d not necessar i l y
const i t ut e t he act us r eus of cont empt . Second, t he appel l ant ar gued t hat t he
f ocus on ` pur pose' , as def i ned above, r equi r es t he non- par t y t o be abl e t o r eadi l y
det er mi ne t he ambi t of t he cour t ' s or der . An or der whi ch t el l s anamed par r y t o
r ef r ai n f r oma cer t ai n act achi eves t hat pur pose when t henamedpar t y compl i es .
To r equi r e somet hi ng of non- par t i es i nvi t es uncer t ai nt y, and, i n mat t er s of
cr i mi nal l i abi l i t y f or cont empt , uncer t ai nt y shoul d not be per mi t t ed. Lor d Ol i ver
saw mer i t i n t hi s ar gument t o t he ext ent t hat t he pur pose of t he cour t i n maki ng
t he or der coul d not be r eadi l y det er mi ned by anon- par t y. However , i n t hat case,
he opi ned, t he non- par t y woul d escape l i abi l i t y because t he necessar y mens r ea
woul d not be pr oved. " . . . [ F] or an i nt ent i on t o f r ust r at e t he pur pose of t he cour t
woul d be di f f i cul t t o est abl i sh i f t he pur pose i t sel f was not ei t her known or
obvi ous . " 25 Thi r d, t he appel l ant ar gued t hat anon- par t y who i s hel d i n cont empt
f or i nt er f er ence wi t h t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce i s depr i ved of any oppor t uni t y
t o ar gue bef or e t he cour t t hat he or she i s f r ee t o car r y out t he enj oi ned conduct
because t hey ar enot l i t i gant s i n any pr oceedi ng . Lor d Ol i ver r egi st er ed di squi et
over t hi s par t i cul ar aspect of t he cont empt j ur i sdi ct i on but t hought t hat t he non-
par t y, i n t he f act s bef or e t he cour t , was l ar gel y aut hor of hi s own mi sf or t une.
That i s, t he appel l ant coul d wel l have come t o cour t pr i or t o publ i shi ng t he
ser i al i sat i on of Wr i ght ' s book and sought di r ect i ons as t o whet her what i t
i nt ended t o do vi ol at ed t he cour t ' s or der . Lor d Ol i ver anal ogi sed t o t he f r equent
act i ons of t hi r d- par t y banks who seek cour t di r ect i ons t o det er mi ne what i s
r equi r ed t o compl y wi t h a Mar eva i nj unct i on .

23
I bi d. at 231 .
24
I bi d at 223, ci t i ng A. G. v . Level l er Ma_ gazi ne Lt d. , [ 1979] A. C. 440 .
25
I bi d at 223 .
216 LA REVUE DU BARREAU CANADI EN [ VO1. 81

As anal ysed i n A. - G. v. Ti mes Newspaper Lt d. t he const i t uent el ement s of

a cont empt char ge br ought agai nst a non- par t y r equi r es bot h mess r ea and act us
r eus . Act us r eus r equi r es t hat t he non- par t y has done an act t hat , i f per f or med
by t he named par t y woul d const i t ut e a cont empt of t he cour t ' s or der by t hat
par t y, and whi ch does i nt er f er e or i mpede t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce i n t hat
i t f r ust r at es or r ender s f ut i l e t he mai n pur pose f or whi ch t he cour t gr ant ed t he
i nj unct i on i n t he i ni t i al pr oceedi ngs . I n a subsequent case bef or e t he Cour t of
Appeal , A. - G. v . Newspaper s Publ i shi ng Pl c . , 26 t he cour t i ndi cat ed t hat t he
adver se ef f ect on t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce had t o be ` si gni f i cant ' and t hat a
` t r i vi al or t echni cal ' br each coul d be i gnor ed. Wi t h r espect t o t he mens r ea i n
Ti mes Newspaper s, t hat bei ng conceded by t he appel l ant i n t he House of Lor ds,
t hei r Lor ds had l i t t l e t o say, al t hough, Lor ds Br andon and Jauncey bot h
i ndi cat ed i t woul d be necessar y t o pr ove t hat t he non- par t y ` knowi ngl y'
i nt ended t o i nt er f er e or i mpede t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce. I n t he Cour t of
Appeal , wher e t hi s i ssue had been di sput ed, Lor d Donal dson M. R. st at ed on t he
quest i on of what t ype of i nt ent was r equi r ed:

. . . . what i s cont empl at ed . . . . i s t he power of t he cour t t o commi t f or cont empt wher e t he

conduct compl ai ned of i s speci f i cal l y i nt ended t o i mpede or pr ej udi ce t he admi ni st r at i on
of j ust i ce . Such an i nt ent need not be expr essl y avowed or admi t t ed, but can be i nf er r ed
f r om al l t he ci r cumst ances, i ncl udi ng t he f or eseeabi l i t y of t he consequences of t he
conduct . Nor need i t be t he sol e i nt ent i on of t he cont emnor . An i nt ent i s t o be
di st i ngui shed f r ommot i ve or desi r e. 27

The mens r ea r equi r ement f or t hi s f or m of cont empt i s di f f er ent f r om t he

r equi r ement f or cont empt by a named par t y i n di sobeyi ng t he i nj unct i on. I n t he
l at t er , al l t hat i s r equi r ed i s t hat t he def endant act ed i nt ent i onal l y t o br each t he
cour t ' s or der and l i abi l i t y i s t hen st r i ct 28 Thi s expl anat i on of t he mens r ea
r equi r ement i s si mi l ar t o t hat appl i ed i n ZLt d. v . A- Z and AA- LL t o cont empt by
a non- par t y f or ai di ng and abet t i ng a named def endant 29 I n t hat case Evel ei gh
L . J . emphasi sed t hat t he t hi r d- par t y bank had t o ` knowi ngl y' assi st i n t he br each
of t he i nj unct i on i n t hat i t knewof t he i nj unct i on and wi l f ul l y assi st ed t he per son
t o whom i t was di r ect ed . Evel ei gh L . J . al so suggest ed t hat t he bank coul d
become l i abl e f or cont empt i f i t act ed car el essl y or r eckl essl y t o such a degr ee
t hat i t coul d be sai d t hat i t had act ed wi t h cont umaci ous i ndi f f er ence . 3 o

26
[ 199711 W . L . R. 926 ( C. A. ) .
' - 7 A. G. v . Newspaper Publ i shi ng Pl c., [ 198811 Ch. 333 ( C. A. ) , at 374- 75 . Lor d
Donal dson M. R. ' s appr oach was i t sel f endor sed i n A. - G. v . Newspaper s Publ i shi ng Pl c. ,
i bi d. at 936 per Lor d Bi ngham C. J .
28 See Mi l l er , The Lat i n of Cont empt , supr a not e 14 at 4 . 52 . The spect r e of cont empt
f or i mpedi ng or i nt er f er i ng wi t h t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce has cr eat ed t he possi bi l i t y t hat
a par t y coul d be hel d l i abl e f or cont empt i n advance of any or der bei ng gr ant ed on t he basi s
t hat t he non- par t y' s act i ons have pr ej udi ced t he r i ght s of a named par t y i n pot ent i al
l i t i gat i on and have t hus i mpeded t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce . Thi s was ar gued i n Har r ow
London Bor ough Counci l v . Johnst one, [ 199711 W . L . R. 429 ( H. L . ) wher e t he cour t
r ej ect ed such a submi ssi on.
29
Supr a not e 16 at 581- 82 and 583 .
30 I bi d. at 583, and see Mi l l er supr a not e 15 at 14 . 65 .
20021 I nj unct i ons - The Abi l i t y t o Bi nd Non- Par t i es 217

Recent l y, i n a case t hat i s, r emar kabl y si mi l ar t o t he Spycat cher saga, t he

Engl i sh Cour t of Appeal f ur t her expanded on what const i t ut es t he act us r eus and
mens r ea . I n St een v . A. - G. 31 t he appel l ant , edi t or of Punch magazi ne, publ i shed
a ser i es of col umns wr i t t en by Davi d Shayl er , a f or mer empl oyee of t he Engl i sh
Secr et Ser vi ce. Pr i or t o t he publ i cat i on of t he col umns t he At t or ney- Gener al had
successf ul l y obt ai ned an i nt er l ocut or y i nj unct i on r est r ai ni ng bot h Shayl er and
Associ at ed Newspaper s f r ompubl i shi ng any mat er i al of a conf i dent i al nat ur e
whi ch Shayl er had acqui r ed whi l e i n t he empl oy of t he Secr et Ser vi ce . The
col umns publ i shed i n Punch cont ai ned pr evi ousl y publ i shed mat er i al and al so
newmat er i al whi ch up unt i l i t s publ i cat i onhad been conf i dent i al . The At t or ney-
Gener al br ought cont empt pr oceedi ngs agai nst St een on t he basi s t hat t he
publ i cat i on of t hi s mat er i al i mpeded and i nt er f er ed wi t h t he admi ni st r at i on of
j ust i ce . St een, who was unsuccessf ul i n t he t r i al cour t , def ended agai nst t he
char ge on t he basi s t hat t he At t or ney- Gener al had f ai l ed t o pr ove t hat he had t he
r equi si t e act us r eus or mens r ea .
Af t er an ext ensi ve r evi ew of t he Spycat cher cases t he Cour t of Appeal hel d
t hat t he r equi si t e act us r eus was met when t he At t or ney- Gener al pr oved t hat
St een had publ i shed t he col umns so as t o def eat t he pur pose of t he i nj unct i on
whi ch was : " t o pr eser ve unt i l t r i al t he conf i dent i al i t y of mat er i al whose
di scl osur e ` ar guabl y posed a r i sk of damagi ng nat i onal secur i t y' . " 32 Tur ni ng t o
t he mens r ea, a maj or i t y of t he cour t hel d t hat i t had not been met because t he
At t or ney- Gener al had f ai l ed t o pr ove t hat t he appel l ant had t he r equi si t e
knowl edge " t hat publ i cat i on woul d i nt er f er e wi t h t he cour se of j ust i ce by
def eat i ng t he pur pose under l yi ng t he i nj unct i on . " The evi dence showed t hat
St een was anxi ous not t o publ i sh mat er i al t hat woul d i mpact upon nat i onal
secur i t y. He ar gued, and t he maj or i t y accept ed, t hat t he i ncl usi on of a pr ovi so
i n t he or i gi nal i nj unct i on, whi ch had pur por t ed t o excl ude f r omt he i nj unct i on' s
ambi t subsequent mat er i al i n whi ch t he At t or ney- Gener al made a st at ement
i ndi cat i ng t hat no conf i dent i al i t y woul d be cl ai med, made t he pur pose of t he
or der di f f i cul t t o di scer n . I n par t i cul ar , was t he or der ' s pur pose t o r est r ai n any
and al l st at ement s f r omShayl er , or , onl y t hose t hat t hr eat ened nat i onal secur i t y?
I n addi t i on, St een had cor r esponded wi t h t he Tr easur y Sol i ci t or , t he appr opr i at e
gover nment of f i cer , t o det er mi ne t he par amet er s of t he i nj unct i on and whet her
t he mat er i al he was about t o publ i sh was a t hr eat t o nat i onal secur i t y . The
cor r espondence wi t h t he Tr easur y Sol i ci t or never cl ar i f i ed t hese ar eas and, wi t h
r espect t o t he par t i cul ar col umn t hat had pr eci pi t at ed t he cont empt char ge, t he
appel l ant had r easonabl e gr ounds t o bel i eve t hat t he Tr easur y Sol i ci t or had
del ayed i n r epl yi ng so as t o save t he gover nment f r omembar r assment . I t was

31 [ 2001] 2 W . L. R. 1713 ( C. A. ) , l eave gr ant ed [ 2001] 1 W . L. R. 2111 .

32 I bi d. at par a. 129, per Si mon Br own L . J. , di ssent i ng. The pur pose of t he i nj unct i on
i s descr i bed as i ncl udi ng t he pr eser vat i on of conf i dent i al i t y whose di scl osur e poses a r i sk
of damagi ng nat i onal secur i t y, whi ch r ecogni zes t he di f f er ent appr oach t o conf i dent i al i t y
appl i ed t o gover nment as agai nst a ci t i zen . The gover nment has no par t i cul ar r i ght t o
conf i dence based on pr i vacy but can onl y ar gue conf i dent i al i t y i f i t advances some publ i c
i nt er est such as t he mai nt enance of nat i onal secur i t y .
218 THE CANADI AN BARREVI EW [ Vol . 81

Dot suf f i ci ent f or t he At t or ney- Gener al t o pr ove t hat St een al one had knowl edge
of t he i nj unct i on and i nt ended t o publ i sh t o sat i sf y t he mens r ea r equi r ement .
Thi s j udgment i s f ur t her evi dence of j ust how nar r ow t he j ur i sdi ct i on i s on
br i ngi ng sui t s f or cont empt agai nst t hi r d par t i es based on i mpedi ng or i nt er f er i ng
wi t h t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce .
The Engl i sh appr oach t o t he l i abi l i t y of a non- par t y t o obey a cour t or der has
wi t nessed a sl owi ncr ement al gr owt h i n t he t ype of conduct whi ch wi l l make a
non- par t y l i abl e f or cont empt . The Engl i sh cour t s have consi st ent l y af f i r med
t he posi t i on t hat onl y par t i es t o an act i on ar e bound by t he cour t ' s or der . The
ext ensi on of cont empt beyond ai der s, abet t or s and i nt er meddl er s has been
caut i ousl y appr oved wher e t he non- par t y i nt ent i onal l y set s out t o i mpede or
i nt er f er e wi t h t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce . Unf or t unat el y i t i s di f f i cul t t o gi ve
muc h pr eci si on as t o when t he act i ons of a non- par t y wi l l i mpede t he
admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce, however , t he Engl i sh cour t do r equi r e act ual pr oof of
an i nt ent t o i nt er f er e or i mpede t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce . The vast maj or i t y
of Engl i sh cases appear t o ar i se f r om t he pr ot ect i on of conf i dent i al i t y or t he
i dent i t y of wi t nesses . 33 I n t hese cases i t i s r el at i vel y easy t o see how any
subsequent vi ol at i on of a cour t or der wi l l i mpede t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce
wher e i t wi l l dest r oy t he ver y subst r at a of t he act i on and t he r i ght s pr ot ect ed by
t he cour t i n uphol di ng t he conf i dent i al i t y or secr ecy. Even i n t hese cases,
pr ovi ng t he necessar y mens r ea may be ver y pr obl emat i c . Never t hel ess, t her e
have been a number of i nst ances wher e Engl i sh cour t s have devel oped a t r ue
except i on t o t he not i on t hat onl y par t i es t o an act i on can be bound by a cour t ' s
or der and have cr eat ed an i nj unct i on t hat i ssues agai nst t he wor l d at l ar ge, or
cont r a mundi an . The i nst ances wher e t hi s t ype of or der has been made ar e
var i ed, however , t hey have i n c ommon t he el ement t hat t he enj oi ned act i on,
usual l y t hat of t he pr ess, i f i t went ahead unabat ed, woul d r eveal t he i dent i t y or
cur r ent l ocat i on of t he pl ai nt i f f , and t o t he pl ai nt i f f ' s al l eged det r i ment . For
exampl e, i n Re X ( A Mi nor ) ( War dshi p: I nj unct i on) 34 Mar y Bel l was f ound
gui l t y of mansl aught er of t wo boys when she was aged el even . She was l at er
r el eased as par t of her r ehabi l i t at i on and had gi ven bi r t h t o a chi l d af t er her r el ease .
The News of t he Wor l d newspaper became awar e of Mar y Bel l ' s ci r cumst ances
and pr oposed t o r un a f eat ur e st or y . The l ocal counci l t hen br ought an act i on t o seek
an or der pr event i ng publ i cat i on of mat er i al whi ch mi ght l ead t o r eveal i ng t he name
Mar y Bel l nowused and t hus t o i dent i f yi ng her daught er who had been made a war d
of t he cour t . Bal combe J . gr ant ed t he i nj unct i on pur suant t o t he cour t ' s i nher ent
j ur i sdi ct i on t o act i n t he best i nt er est of war ds of t he cour t . 35 ( The i nj unct i on was
gr ant ed t o pr ot ect Mar y Bel l ' s chi l d and not Mar y Bel l her sel f . ) However , t he

33 See al so A. - G. v. Level l er Magazi ne, supr a not e 24 .

34
[ 198411 W.L . R. 1422 ( Fam. Di v . )
35
I bi d. at 1425 : Bal combe J . ( as he t hen was) doubt ed whet her he had j ur i sdi ct i on t o
gr ant such an or der beyond a per son who was a war d of t he cour t . I n A. - G. v . Newspaper
Publ i shi ng Pl c. , supr a not e 27 at 369, Lor d Donal dson M. R. doubt ed t he val i di t y of
Bal combe J' s j udgment , however , Bal combe L . J . at 388 af f i r med t he cor r ect ness of hi s
ear l i er r ul i ng .
2002] I nj unct i ons - The Abi l i t y t o Bi nd Non- Par t i es 21 9

i nj unct i on woul d onl y be ef f ect i ve agai nst t hose who had not i ce of i t . Thi s
j ur i sdi ct i on t o awar d an i nj unct i on agai nst al l t he wor l d t o pr ot ect war ds
and ot her s who f al l wi t hi n t he cour t ' s i nher ent par ens pat r i ae j ur i sdi ct i on
has been f ol l owed i n numer ous ot her cases . 36
Amor e novel appl i cat i on has r ecent l y ar i sen i n Venabl es v . News Gr oup
Newspaper s Lt d. 37 I n 1993 t he t wo cl ai mant s had ki l l ed a t oddl er . Fol l owi ng
t hei r t r i al s t hey wer e pl aced i n det ent i on homes r un by a l ocal aut hor i t y . At t he
t i me of t he t r i al an i nj unct i on had been gr ant ed pr event i ng t he publ i cat i on of
i nf or mat i on about t he cl ai mant s f ol l owi ng t hei r t r i al so t hat t hey woul d be gi ven
an oppor t uni t y t o r ehabi l i t at e t hemsel ves f r ee f r omconst ant medi a at t ent i on.
Upon at t ai ni ng t heageof 18 ( t he age of maj or i t y) t he cl ai mant s sought ext ensi on
of t he publ i cat i on ban i ssued i n 1993 . The cl ai mant s wer e mot i vat ed t o make
t hi s r equest af t er a number of newspaper s and medi a gr oups appl i ed t o have
cl ar i f i cat i on of t he or i gi nal i nj unct i on once t he cl ai mant s gai ned t he age of
maj or i t y . I n par t i cul ar , t he cl ai mant s want ed t he news medi a t o be r est r ai ned
f r om publ i shi ng any cur r ent pi ct ur es, t he l ocat i on of t hei r cur r ent det ent i on
homes, and det ai l s about t hei r f ut ur e pl acement s i n t he communi t y. Thi s case
di f f er ed f r omt hat of a mi nor or war d of t he cour t i n t hat t he mat er i al sought t o
be enj oi ned r el at ed t o t heper i od when t he cl ai mant s wer e of t he age of maj or i t y .
The cl ai mant s, al t hough par t i es i n uni que ci r cumst ance, wer e not appr eci abl y
di f f er ent f r omot her i nf amous peopl e who ar e subj ect t o medi a at t ent i on. I t i s f or
t hi s r eason t hat t hey ar guedt hey wer e ent i t l edt o pr ot ect conf i dent i al i nf or mat i on .
The def endant t hen ar gued t hat under t he appr opr i at e common l awdoct r i nes of
conf i dent i al i t y, t he cour t was r equi r ed t o consi der t he publ i c i nt er est i n al l owi ng
di scl osur e and t hat si nce t he enact ment of t he Human Ri ght s Act ( U. K. ) 1998
and Eur opean Convent i on on Human Ri ght s, t he cour t was r equi r ed t o gi ve
pr ess f r eedompar amount i mpor t ance. To t hi s submi ssi on t he cl ai mant s ar gued
t hat i n bal anci ng t hepubl i c i nt er est , t hey wer e al so ent i t l ed t o pr ot ect i on under
t he Human Ri ght s and Convent i on wher e t he evi dence showed t hat publ i cat i on
of t hemat er i al , andt hus i dent i f i cat i on of t hecl ai mant s, woul d r esul t i n a r eal r i sk
of t hei r bei ng har med by t hose who wi shed t o avenge t he mur der of t he t oddl er .
But l er - Sl oss P. accept ed t hat t he l awof conf i dent i al i t y, i n l i ght of t he di r ect i on
of t he human r i ght s l egi sl at i on, coul d cover t he uni que ci r cumst ances of t he
cl ai mant s and t hat t he cour t hadj ur i sdi ct i on t o gr ant an i nj unct i on. The r i ght t o
pr ess f r eedomof expr essi on had t o be const r ued consi st ent l y wi t h ot her r i ght s
i n t he l egi sl at i on, and, i n par t i cul ar , t he cl ai mant s' r i ght s t o l i f e, pr ohi bi t i on of
t or t ur e, and r espect f or pr i vat e andf ami l y l i f e ( ar t i cl es 2, 3, & 8 of t he Eur opean
Convent i on) . Tur ni ngt o t he scope of t he i nj unct i on, But l er - Sl oss P. r ecogni zed
t hat an or der made agai nst t he l one def endant woul d be i nef f ect i ve i f ot her
newspaper s wer e t hen f r ee t o publ i sh what t he News of t he Wor l d had been
pr event ed . Al t hough an or der made agai nst a named def endant coul d gi ve r i se
t o cont empt pr oceedi ngs i f subsequent act i ons of anon- par t y coul d be f ound t o

36 The cases ar e f ul l cover ed i n Mi l l er , supr a not e 15 at 10 . 174- 10- 189.

37
Supr a not e 4.
220 LA REVUE DU BARREAU CANADI EN [ Vol . 81

be an i nt er f er ence wi t h t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce, But l er - Sl oss P. bel i eved i t

was i nappr opr i at e t o do t hr ough t he back door what she coul d not do t hr ough
t he f r ont door . Rel yi ng upon a br oad r equi r ement t o act i n a manner compat i bl e
wi t h t he Eur opean Convent i on, she decl i ned t o f ol l ow t he di ct umof Lor d El don
i n I veson v . Har r i s 3s and gr ant ed t he i nj unct i on agai nst t he wor l d at l ar ge . The
t er ms of t he i nj unct i on wer e t o ensur e t hat any i nf or mat i on t hat woul d l ead t o
t he f ut ur e i dent i f i cat i on and l ocat i on of t he cl ai mant s was not publ i shed,
i ncl udi ng phot ogr aphs, and i nt er vi ews wi t h co- det ai nees and car e- gi ver s .
I nf or mat i on on t he wor ki ngs of t he secur e uni t s wher e t hey had been det ai ned
bef or e bei ng par ol ed coul d be publ i shed af t er a per i od of 12 mont hs had el apsed,
pr ovi ded i t woul d not l ead t o t he i dent i f i cat i on and cur r ent l ocat i on of t he
cl ai mant s . The i nj unct i on was t o oper at e f or t he f ut ur e, pr esumabl y f or t he
nat ur al l i f e of t he cl ai mant s, and i t pr ohi bi t ed al l publ i cat i on by any f or m of
medi a. Ant i ci pat i ng t he f act t hat because t he i nj unct i on coul d onl y be ef f ect i ve
i n Engl and and Wal es, and t hat mat er i al t hat i s once pl aced i n t he publ i c domai n
can no l onger be consi der ed conf i dent i al , But l er - Sl oss P. al so pr ohi bi t ed t he
wi der ci r cul at i on of mat er i al whi ch may have ent er ed t he publ i c domai n
t hr ough t he i nt er net or ot her f or ei gn medi a out l et s .
I n t he Engl i sh cont ext t he ef f ect of maki ng t he or der agai nst t he wor l d at
l ar ge wi l l subj ect a non- par t y who vi ol at es t he t er ms of t he i nj unct i on gui l t y of
ci vi l cont empt r at her t han cr i mi nal cont empt , t he appr opr i at e char ge when t he
non- par t y i nt er f er es wi t h or i mpedes t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce . 39 Thi s woul d
ef f ect i vel y al t er t he f nens r ea r equi r ement , t he f or mer r equi r i ng an i nt ent i onal
act t o br each t he or der whi ch i s not ` casual or acci dent al and uni nt ent i onal ' 4°
The l at t er , r equi r es pr oof of an act ual i nt ent t o i mpede or i nt er f er e wi t h t he
admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce . However , i n bot h cases act ual knowl edge of t he
i nj unct i on woul d st i l l be a pr er equi si t e t o any commi t t al pr oceedi ng of a non-
par t y f or cont empt .
The t endency i n t he Uni t ed Ki ngdomi s t o eschew di st i nct i ons bet ween
ci vi l and cr i mi nal cont empt . The saf eguar ds nor mal l y associ at ed wi t h cr i mi nal
pr oceedi ngs, i . e . hi gher bur den and st andar d of pr oof and pr ot ect i on agai nst
sel f - i ncr i mi nat i on, have been assi mi l at ed i nt o ci vi l pr oceedi ngs f or cont empt of
cour t f or bot h ci vi l and cr i mi nal cont empt wher e bot h pur sue puni shment and
det er r ence as goal s4 1 Never t hel ess, t her e may st i l l be some r esi dual di st i nct i ons .
For exampl e, i t i s mor e l i kel y t hat an act i on based on i mpedi ng and i nt er f er i ng
i n t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce wi l l be br ought by t he At t or ney- Gener al r at her
t han by t he pl ai nt i f f . The f or mer i s char ged wi t h mai nt ai ni ng publ i c or der , and

38
Supr a not e 6.
39
Mi l l er , supr a not e 15 at 14 . 61 . Not e t hat i n Scot t v. Scot t , [ 1913] A. C. 417 at 458-
59, Lor d At l i nson descr i bed as absur d t he not i on t hat a named per son who vi ol at es an
i nj unct i on i s l i abl e onl y f or ci vi l cont empt , wher eas, a non- par t y who i mpedes t he
admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce i s gui l t y of cr i mi nal cont empt .
40 Heat ons Tr anspor t ( St Hel ens) Lt d. v . Tr anspor t and Gener al Wor ker s' Uni on,
[ 19731 A. C. 15 ( H. L . ) at 109- 10, and see Mi l l er , i bi d. at 14 . 51 .
41 Mi l l er ,
i bi d. at chapt er 2 .
2002] I nj unct i ons - The Abi l i t y t o Bi nd Non- Par t i es 22 1

i t i s t hat whi ch i s j eopar di sed by i nt er f er ence wi t h t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce .

I t i s al so di f f i cul t t o escape apopul i st vi ewt hat some cont empt s ar emor e odi ous
t han ot her s and t hat t hi s shoul d be r ef l ect ed not onl y i n t he quant i t y of
puni shment i mposed but i n t he char act er i sat i on of t he cont empt char ge i t sel f . 42

I V. Devel opment s i n Canada of t he Canon t hat Onl y a Par t y t o an

I nj unct i on Or der i s Bound by i t

I n Canada t her ear e a coupl e of ear l y r epor t ed cases whi ch si mpl y ci t e and f ol l ow
t he ear l y Engl i sh pr ecedent s 43 wi t h l i t t l e, i f any, di scussi on on whet her t he
or der can be made agai nst non- par t i es . Anot her gr oup of cases i nvol ves
i nj unct i ons whi chhave been gr ant ed bet ween namedpar t i es, but whi ch have an
uni nt ended r esul t of appear i ng t o r est r i ct t he act i vi t i es of a t hi r d par t y . 44 By f ar
t he l ar gest number of cases i n Canada i n whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f has pur por t ed t o
make non- par t i es subj ect t o an i nj unct i on ar i se i n t he cont ext of l abour
pi cket i ng .
I n Bassel ' s Lunch Lt d. v . Ki ck et . al . 45 t he pl ai nt i f f successf ul l y obt ai ned
an i nj unct i on enj oi ni ng named def endant s, al l member s of t he Hot el and
Rest aur ant Empl oyees I nt er nat i onal Al l i ance, f r om pi cket i ng out si de t he
pl ai nt i f f ' s pr emi ses . I n pl ace of t he named def endant s, ot her member s of t he
uni on commenced pi cket i ng. Thepl ai nt i f f t henbr ought pr oceedi ngsf or cont empt
agai nst t henon- par t i es . I n t he t r i al cour t , Ki ngst one J . hel d agai nst t he pl ai nt i f f .
The evi dence di dnot pr ovet hat t he non- par t i es hadai ded and abet t ed t henamed
def endant s t o br each t hei nj unct i on wher e t henamed def endant s had been f ound
t o be i n f ul l compl i ance wi t h t he cour t ' s or i gi nal or der . The t r i al j udge was
r ever sed on appeal . Ri ddel l J . A. , f or t he cour t , saw t he act s of t he non- par t i es
as i nt er meddl er s and t hus wi t hi n t he t er ms of Lor d Langdal e M. R. ' s enunci at i on
of t he l aw i n Lor d Wel l esl ey v . The Ear l of Mor ni ngt on. 46

42
I n A. - G. v. Newspaper Publ i shi ng Pl c. , supr a not e 27 at 362, Donal dson M.R.
suggest ed t hat cr i mi nal and ci vi l cont empt shoul d be r ecl assi f i ed i nt o conduct whi ch
i nvol ves a br each, or assi st i ng a br each, of a cour t or der , and, conduct whi ch i nvol ves an
i nt er f er ence wi t h t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce. I n t he f or mer , i t i s l ef t t o t he par t i es t o r ai se
wher eas i n t he l at t er , i t i s t he f unct i on of t he At t or ney- Gener al as guar di an of t he publ i c
i nt er est .
43
See Hynes v . Fi sher ( 1883) , 4 O. R. 78 ( Q. B. ) at 86- 87 ci t i ng Lor d Wel l esl ey v. The
Ear l of Mor ni ngt on, supr a not e 9, and Uni on Nat ur al Gas Co. v. Chat hamGas Co. ( 1918) ,
56 S. C. R. 253 per Angl i n J; ( di ssent i ng) at 280, ci t i ng Seawar d v. Pat er son supr a not e 10.
44 See f or exampl e St andal Est at e v. Swecan I nt er nat i onal ( 1989) , 99 N. R. 1 ( Fed.
C. A. ) on whet her aMar eva i nj unct i on canbi nd banaf i de pur chaser f r omnameddef endant .
Gunn v. McI nnes, [ 1923] 1 W . W. R. 353 ( Man . K. B . ) I n a di sput e over pr oper t y cl ai med by
a par t y t hr ough adver se possessi on, an i nj unct i on gr ant ed agai nst a subsequent pur chaser
of l and was not bi ndi ng on or i gi nal vendor when t he subsequent pur chaser r eassi gned t he
l and t o t he or i gi nal vendor .
45
[ 1936] O. R. 445 ( C. A. ) .
46
Supr a not e 9 .
222 THE CANADI AN BARREVI EW ( Vo1 . 81

The key di f f er ence bet ween Ki ngst one J . ' s and Ri ddel l J. A. ' s j udgment i s
t he l at i t ude encompassed wi t hi n t he not i on of ai di ng and abet t i ng . Ki ngst on J.
chose t o nar r owl y def i ne t he t er m. Bef or e a per son coul d be f ound gui l t y of
ai di ng and abet t i ng anot her par t y, t hat ot her par t y must al so be gui l t y of
under t aki ng t he enj oi ned act i vi t y . The backdr op t o Ki ngst on J . ' s r ul i ng was t he
vi ewt hat t he non- named def endant s shoul d r eal l y have been char ged under t he
cr i mi nal l aw and t hat t he pl ai nt i f f shoul d not have sought t o use t he ci vi l l awt o
enhance puni shment of cr i mi nal of f ences . Ri ddel l J . A. ' s appr oach mor e wi del y
def i ned ai di ng and abet t i ng t o encompass a per son who, wi t h knowl edge of t he
or der , act s i n a way t hat achi eves t he conduct t hat has been enj oi ned . I n a
subsequent case ar i si ng f r omt he same l abour di sput e, and ci t i ng addi t i onal non-
par t i es f or cont empt , Macdonnel l J . A. , f or t he Cour t of Appeal , summar i sed t he
l aw as f ol l ows :

An i nj unct i on r est r ai ni ng A f r omdoi ng some act i s not an i nj unct i on r est r ai ni ng B or

Cf r omdoi ng i t . I n many i nst ances, al so, t he f act t hat B or Cdo t he act pr ohi bi t ed t o
A, does not amount t o any assi st i ng or ai di ng of A by B or C; t he l at t er may be act i ng
qui t e i ndependent l y of A. On t he ot her hand i t i s sophi st r y t o ar gue t hat , because A
r ef r ai ns f r om doi ng t he act , t her ef or e B or C' s doi ng i t i n hi s pl ace i s not assi st i ng or
ai di ng hi m. Wher e B and C act not i ndependent l y but because of t hei r i nt er est i n A,
i t may wel l be hel d t hat t hey ar e assi st i ng or ai di ng hi m; at l east t hey ar e i nt er - meddl i ng
and so may be f ound gui l t y4 7

The di st i nct i on bet ween ai di ng and abet t i ng an enj oi ned par t y and i nt er f er i ng
wi t h t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce emer ges i n Re Ti l co Pl ast i cs Lt d. v. Skt t r j at . 4&
The At t or ney- Gener al f or Ont ar i o br ought conuni t t al f or cont empt pr oceedi ngs
agai nst 27 uni oni st s who had been pi cket i ng out si de t he pl ai nt i f f ' s f act or y . Pr i or
t o t he At t or ney- Gener al ' s i nt er vent i on t he pl ai nt i f f had obt ai ned an i nt er l ocut or y
i nj unct i on r est r i ct i ng t he number of pi cket er s t o 12 . As a r esul t of t hi s i nj unct i on,
ot her t r ade uni oni st s mount ed a campai gn agai nst t he use of i nj unct i ons i n
l abour di sput es and commenced an or chest r at ed campai gn t o def y t he i nj unct i on .
As a r esul t of t hi s act i vi t y t he 27 uni oni st s, f i ve of whomwer e i nst r ument al i n
l eadi ng t he campai gn, wer e commi t t ed f or cont empt , al t hough none of t hemhad
been named def endant s i n t he or i gi nal i nj unct i on pr oceedi ngs . I n t hi s sense t he
pr i mar y mot i vat i on of t hose commi t t ed f or cont empt was not t o ai d and abet t he
i ni t i al st r i ker s of t he pl ai nt i f f - i . e . t he named par t i es' pur pose, al t hough i t di d
ef f ect t hat r esul t as wel l , but was t o br i ng pr essur e t o bear on bot h cour t and
l egi sl at ur e concer ni ng t he use of i nj unct i ons i n l abour di sput es - i . e. t he non-
par t i es' pur pose . Gal e C. J. H. C. hel d t hose commi t t ed f or cont empt gui l t y of
cr i mi nal cont empt . Fol l owi ng Seawar d v . Pat er son Gal e C. J . H. C. st r esse d t hat
a per son was l i abl e f or cont empt wher e t hey had knowl edge of t he cour t ' s or der
and set out t o def y i t , t hough not a par t y t o t he pr oceedi ngs 49 Most of t he

`t 7
I bi d. at 456 .
48 ( 1966) , 57 D. L . R. ( 2d) 596 ( Ont . H. C. ) , ( 1967) , 61 D. L . R. ( 2d) 664. Appeal t o t he
Cour t of Appeal di smi ssed and l eave t o Supr eme Cour t of Canada r ef used.
49 Supr a
not e 47.
2002] - I nj unct i ons - The Abi l i t y t o Bi nd Non- Par t i es 223

ar gument i n t he case cent r ed on whet her t he r espondent s had suf f i ci ent not i ce
of t he cour t ' s ear l i er i nj unct i on. The evi dence bef or e t he cour t was t hat some
had been gi ven di r ect not i ce of t he i nj unct i on af t er i t had been i ssued whi l e
ot her s wer e onl y made awar e of i t s exi st ence t hr ough newspaper s, r adi o, and t he
post i ng of t he i nj unct i on out si de t he pl ai nt i f f ' s pr emi ses . Gal e C. J . H. C. was
pr epar ed t o hol d t hat t he r espondent s had suf f i ci ent act ual not i ce of t he
i nj unct i on such t hat t hey must have been awar e of i t s exi st ence and t hat t hei r
act i vi t i es woul d have const i t ut ed an i nf r i ngement of t he i nj unct i on had t hey
been named par t i es . Unl i ke devel opment s i n t he Uni t ed Ki ngdomt her e i s l i t t l e
di scussi on by Gal e C. J. H. C on what ar e t he const i t uent el ement s of a cont empt
char ge f or ` openl y def yi ng' a cour t or der .
I n Re Ti l co Pl ast i cs Lt d. v . Skur j at Gal e C. J . H. C r ecogni zed t he f or mof
cont empt as bei ng cr i mi nal cont empt . Thi s concl usi on necessar i l y f ol l owed t he
Supr eme Cour t of Canada' s r ul i ng i n Poj e v. A. G. f or B. C. 50 I n t hat case t he
pl ai nt i f f successf ul l y sought an i nj unct i on agai nst t he Woodwor ker s Uni on
r est r ai ni ng i t s member s f r ompi cket i ng t he pl ai nt i f f ' s shi p . The uni on' s act i ons
pr event ed l ongshor emen f r om l oadi ng t he shi p, as t hey woul d not cr oss t he
pi cket l i ne . Af t er t he i nj unct i on was gr ant ed t he uni on cont i nued i t s pi cket i ng
and t he pl ai nt i f f commenced pr oceedi ngs t o commi t t he member s of t he uni on
f or cont empt . Pr i or t o t he commi t t al pr oceedi ngs comi ng bef or e t he cour t t he
pl ai nt i f f set t l ed i t s di sput e wi t h t he uni on and agr eed t o di scont i nue t he
commi t t al act i on. However , t he Chi ef Just i ce f or Br i t i sh Col umbi a, on hi s own
mot i on cont i nued t he commi t t al pr oceedi ngs on t he basi s t hat t he open def i ance
of t he ear l i er cour t ' s or der amount ed t o cr i mi nal cont empt . Af t er hear i ng t he
evi dence of what had happened when t he sher i f f had t r i ed t o execut e t he or i gi nal
i nj unct i on, t he Chi ef Just i ce f ound t he uni on member s gui l t y of cr i mi nal
cont empt . 51 The appel l ant uni oni st s appeal ed . They ar gued t hat t he l i ne
bet ween ci vi l and cr i mi nal cont empt dr awn f r omcases such as Seawar d v .
Pat er son di st i ngui shed bet ween non- compl i ance wi t h an i nj unct i onby a named
par t y, and t he act i ons of a non- par t y . Ci vi l cont empt i s one of pr ocedur e onl y
i n t hat t he pl ai nt i f f i s seeki ng t o gai n compl i ance agai nst t he par t y di r ect l y
r esponsi bl e f or vi ol at i ng t he pl ai nt i f f ' s r i ght s. I n cr i mi nal cont empt t he act i ons
of t he non- par t y ar e i n open def i ance of t he cour t ' s or der and amount t o an
i nt er f er ence wi t h t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce . The Supr eme Cour t r ej ect ed t hi s
anal ysi s t o di f f er ent i at e t he f or ms of cont empt . Bot h f or ms of cont empt coul d
amount t o ei t her ci vi l or cr i mi nal cont empt , however , cr i mi nal cont empt i s
di st i ngui shed by t he f act t hat t he har mdone i s a ` publ i c' i nj ur y, whi ch i s mor e
t han j ust di sobedi ence of t he cour t ' s or der . Al t hough deal i ng onl y wi t h a named
def endant , i n passi ng, Kel l ock J. suggest ed t hat i n mat t er s of cont empt of cour t ,
a non- par t y i s on t he same f oot i ng as a named par t y . 52

50 [ 195311 S. C. R. 516.
Si
Canadi an Tr anspor t Co. v. Al sbur y et al . , [ 1952] 6 W. W. R. ( N. S. ) 473 ( B. C. S . C. )
af f d [ 195217 W . W. R. ( N. S. ) 49 ( B. C. C. A. ) .
52 Poge, supr a not e 50 at 522 .
224 LA REVUE DU BARREAU CANADI EN [ VO1 . 81

The deci si on i n Cat key Const r uct i on Lt d. v . Mor an53 goes t he f ur t hest i n
hol di ng a non- par t y l i abl e f or hi s or her own i ndependent act i ons whi ch ar e
nei t her ai di ng, abet t i ng nor i nt er meddl i ng, but , whi ch ar e seen as def i ance of t he
cour t . The pl ai nt i f f gai ned an i nj unct i on agai nst named def endant s, al l member s
of t he Tr ades Counci l , enj oi ni ng t hem f r om pi cket i ng out si de t he pl ai nt i f f ' s
const r uct i on si t e . The pl ai nt i f f r ef used t o empl oy t he def endant s' member s and
i nsi st ed on usi ng non- uni on l abour . The non- par t y def endant , who was nei t her
a member of t he Tr ades Counci l , nor had been encour aged by t he named
def endant s t o j oi n t he pi cket , act ed on hi s own vol i t i on t o pi cket t he pl ai nt i f f ' s
pr emi ses . The evi dence pr oved t hat t he non- par t y def endant had been gi ven
not i ce of t he i nj unct i on . Pennel l J . hel d t he non- par t y def endant l i abl e f or
cont empt on t he basi s t hat a per son who was awar e of a cour t or der and t hen
knowi ngl y cont r avened i t , act ed i n def i ance of t he cour t and was gui l t y of
cont empt . Thi s j udgment , al t hough of a r el at i vel y l ow l evel , st ar t ed a t r end i n
t he Canadi an cases t o hol d non- par t i es l i abl e f or ci vi l cont empt 54 wher e t hey
si mpl y have not i ce of t he i nj unct i on and ar e car r yi ng out t he enj oi ned act s al bei t
not as ai der s, abet t or s or i nt er - meddl er s .
I n anot her ser i es of cases, Canadi an cour t s have deal t wi t h whet her an
i nj unct i on agai nst a named uni on i ncl udes al l member s of t he uni on, and
whet her t he t er mi nol ogy of t he or der whi ch speci f i cal l y enj oi ns al l per sons
act i ng wi t h knowl edge of t he or der can, i n l aw, have t hat af f ect . I n Ever gr een
Pr ess Lt d. v . Vancouver Typogr aphi cal Uni on55 Macf ar l ane J . hel d t hat he had
f ound no aut hor i t y t o i ncl ude amongst t he par t i es enj oi ned al l per sons act i ng
wi t h knowl edge of t he or der who wer e not par t i es t o t he or der . 56 I n Bar t l e &
Gi bson Co . Lt d. v . Ret ai l , Whol esal e and Depar t ment St or e Uni on, 57 t he Br i t i sh
Col umbi a Cour t of Appeal t ook a mor e accommodat i ng posi t i on . The i nj unct i on
was expr essed i n si mi l ar l anguage t o t hat i n Ever gr een Pr ess 58 i n t hat i t
pur por t ed t o di r ect l y enj oi n any per son havi ng knowl edge of t he or der . Tysoe
J. A. , speaki ng f or t he cour t , saw no er r or i n t he or der ' s t er mi nol ogy hol di ng t hat
per sons who, wi t h knowl edge of t he or der , t ook st eps t o assi st i n cont r aveni ng
i t , wer e al so l i abl e f or cont empt . The t er mi nol ogy of t he or der was consi der ed
appr opr i at e gi ven t he st at e of l abour r el at i ons i n Br i t i sh Col umbi a at t he t i me, and
wher e t her e was a hi gh pr opensi t y f or i nt er meddl er s t o become i nvol ved i n l abour
di sput es . Tysoe J. A. ' s j udgment appear s t o eschew di f f er ences i n cont empt by a
named par t y di r ect l y and of a non- par t y who ai ds, abet s or i nt er meddl es 59

53 ( 1969) , 8 D. L . R. ( 3d) 413 ( Ont . H. C. ) .

54
The f or m of cont empt i s not di scussed i n t he j udgment . Pr esumabl y t he cour t was
deal i ng wi t h c i v i l cont empt as t he act i on was br ought by t he pl ai nt i f f r at her t han At t or ney-
Gener al and t he f i ne i mposed was r at her smal l . Ther e was no evi dence of publ i c def i ance
ot her t han t he act ual pi cket i ng act i on al one.
55
( 1959) , 18 D. L. R. ( 2d) 401 ( B. C. S. C. ) .
56 A si mi l ar ar gument was accept ed i n C. P . R. Co. v . Br ady ( 1960) , 26 D. L . R. ( 2d) 104
( B. C. S. C. ) per Col l i ns J. .
57
( 1971) , 18 D. L. R. ( 3d) 232 ( B. C. C. A. ) .
Supr a not e 55 at 402 .
5s

Bar t l e, s upr a not e 57 at 238 .

59
20021 I nj unct i ons - The Abi l i t y t o Bi nd Non- Par t i es . 225

The appar ent cont r adi ct or y appr oaches i n Ever gr een Pr ess and Bar t l e &
Gi bson wer e conf r ont ed by Hut cheon Co . Ct . J. i n Mi t chel l Br os. Tr uck Li nes v.
Gener al Tr uck Dr i ver s' & Hel per s' Uni on. 60 Hut cheon Co. Ct . J . was asked t o
r ul e di r ect l y on whet her an i nt er l ocut or y i nj unct i on or der ai med at pr event i ng
t he def endant s f r om encour agi ng f i r ms not t o deal wi t h t he pl ai nt i f f whi l e t he
pl ai nt i f f was embr oi l edi n a l abour di sput ewi t h abr ot her l ocal of t he same uni on
i n Or egon, U. S. A, coul d i ncl ude t he t er m " anyone havi ng knowl edge of t hi s
or der " . Hut cheon Co . Ct . J. r ul ed i n t he pl ai nt i f f ' s f avour pr ovi ded t he wor di ng
f ol l owed t he suggest i on of Lor d Ut hwat t i n Mar engo6l and made i t cl ear t hat
non- par t i es wer e onl y caught by cont empt f or ai di ng and abet t i ng . 62

I n Gr i f f i n St eel Foundr i es Lt d. v . Canadi an Associ at i on of I ndust r i al ,

Mechani cal and Al l i ed Wor ker s63 t he Mani t oba Cour t of Appeal , wi t hout
hear i ng ar gument f r om counsel , hel d t hat i t was i nappr opr i at e i n t he case t o
i ncl ude a pr ovi si on i n t he i nj unct i on pur por t i ng t o bi nd " any per son havi ng
not i ce of t hi s or der . " The i nj unct i on appl i cat i on had been made by an empl oyer
seeki ng t o r est r ai n t he uni on, whi chr epr esent ed t he empl oyees, f r omobst r uct i ng
access t o t he appl i cant ' s pl ant .
Fi nal l y, i n I nt er nat i onal Longshor emen v. Mar i t i me Empl oyer s 64 t he
Supr eme Cour t of Canada appr oved of t he di ct a of Lor d Ut hwat t i n Mar engo.
Ther espondent empl oyer , pl ai nt i f f at t r i al , had sought an i nt er l ocut or y i nj unct i on
agai nst t he appel l ant s, t hr ee t r ade uni ons, t o enj oi n t hemf r omr ef usi ng t o wor k
i n cont r avent i on of a t er mnot t o st r i ke cont ai ned i n t hei r r espect i ve col l ect i ve
agr eement s . The appel l ant s had r ef used t o wor k because t hey wer e honour i ng
anot her uni on' s pi cket l i ne . Est ey J . , speaki ng f or t he cour t , opi ned t hat i t di d
not i nval i dat e an or der t o i ncl ude r ef er ence t o ` of f i cer s, member s and ser vant s'
si nce t he appel l ant uni ons coul d onl y act t hr ough t hose r epr esent at i ves. I n
addi t i on, t he t er mi nol ogy of t he or der had been wi del y used i n Canada.

. . . . such l anguage has, f or many year s, been adopt ed i n t hese i nj unct i ons, . . . . no doubt
f or t he good r eason t hat i t makes t he i mpact and sense of t he or der cl ear t o al l t hat t hose
l i kel y t o be af f ect ed t her eby and, i n any event , such wor di ng canhar dl y be sai d t o har m
any of t he per sons i n l aw af f ect ed by t he or der . 65

A number of obser vat i ons can be made on. t hese Canadi an cases . One, t he
pr esence of t he phr ase " anyone havi ng knowl edge of t he or der " , or si mi l ar
var i at i on i s i mmat er i al t o whet her a per son can be hel d l i abl e f or cont empt of

60
( 1974) , 57 D. L . R. ( 3d) 540 ( B. C. S. C. ) .
61
Supr a not e 15 at 407 .
62
Counsel bef or eHut cheonCo. Ct . J . hadal sobeencounsel i nBar t l e&Gi bson, supr a
not e 57, and submi t t ed t hat t he Cour t of Appeal i n t hat case had not been awar e of t he
deci si on i n Mar engo. I n addi t i on, t he same Cour t of Appeal had i n an unr epor t ed deci si on
( Cunni nghamDr ug St or es Lt d. et . al v. Haynes et . al . ( 7 August 1973) ) del et ed t he wor ds
" and anyone havi ng knowl edge of t hi s Or der " .
63
( 1977) , 80 D. L. R. ( 3d) 634 ( Man. C. A. ) .
64
Supr a not e 1 .
65
I bi d. at 144.
226 THE CANADI AN BAR REVI EW [ Vo1. 81

cour t . The or der cannot be made t o ext end di r ect l y t o non- par t i es by di nt of
changes i n t er mi nol ogy . However , t he pr act i ce of i ncl udi ng t hi s t ype of phr ase
has been encour aged so as t o f or ewar n non- par t i es of pot ent i al exposur e t o
cont empt wher e t hei r act i vi t i es ai d, abet , i nt er meddl e or def y t he cour t ' s or der
or aut hor i t y. Unl i ke Engl i sh cour t s, whi ch have expr essed gr ave doubt s as t o t he
pr opr i et y of t hi s t er mi nol ogy, seni or Canadi an appel l at e cour t s, wi t h one
except i on, have endor sed i t . Two, t he maj or i t y of t he Canadi an cases ar e
i nt er l ocut or y pr oceedi ngs wher e i t i s ar guabl e t hat t her e i s st i l l an oppor t uni t y
t o add par t i es t o t he l i t i gat i on or t o chal l enge t he basi s of t he cour t ' s or i gi nal
or der . Thr ee, a maj or i t y of t he cases i nvol ve pi cket i ng or pr ot est wher e t he
i nj unct i on i s t r ul y anci l l ar y and col l at er al t o t he subst ance of t he di sput e
bet ween t he named par t i es . 66 Four , t her e i s a wi de l at i t ude i n how t he cour t s
def i ne t he egr egi ous conduct of t he non- par t y . A nar r ow vi ewi s t o r equi r e t he
non- par t y' s act i ons t o speci f i cal l y ai d and abet t he named par t i es t o under t ake
t he enj oi ned conduct . I n t hi s sense, t he non- par t y i s act i ng i n col l usi on wi t h t he
named par t y t o achi eve t he same obj ect i ve. Awi der vi ew i s t o si mpl y r equi r e
t he non- par t y' s act i ons t o i nt er meddl e wi t h t he named par t i es enj oi ned conduct .
I n t hi s sense, t he non- par t y' s i nt ent and obj ect i ve i n par t i ci pat i ng may not be t he
same as t he named par t y, yet t he non- par t y i s awar e t hat hi s or her act i ons wi l l
f ur t her t he named par t y' s goal i n some r espect . The wi dest posi t i on i s si mpl y
t o r equi r e t he non- par t y' s act i ons t o have t he same ef f ect as t he enj oi ned conduct
r egar dl ess of how t hat may advance t he i nt er est s of t he named par t y. I n t hi s
sense, even t ot al l y i ndependent act i on by t he non- par t y wi l l gi ve r i se t o
cont empt i f i t vi ol at es t he t er ms of t he i nj unct i on . 67 I n t hi s posi t i on, t he pr i mar y
f unct i on of t he cont empt pr oceedi ng i s t o mai nt ai n aut hor i t y and r espect f or t he
cour t i n t he f ace of def i ance . However , t he cour t s have expr essed ambi val ence
on whet her t he def i ance has t o be ` publ i c' so as t o amount t o an ` open' and ver y
publ i c di spl ay of def i ance, or whet her mer el y par t i ci pat i ng i n car r yi ng out t he
enj oi ned act i vi t y i s enough t o compr i se def i ance of t he cour t ' s aut hor i t y . Fi ve,
even a non- par t y act i ng i n open def i ance of t he cour t may onl y be l i abl e f or ci vi l
cont empt r at her t han t he Engl i sh pr act i ce of hol di ng t he per son gui l t y of
cr i mi nal cont empt .

66 For some r ecent exampl es out si de t he ar ea

of pi cket i ng and pr ot est see Chi cago
Bl ower Co. v . 141209 Canada Lt d ( 1987) , 44 Man. R. ( 2d) 241 ( C. A. ) , l eave t o appeal
r ef used ( 1987) , 50 Man. R. ( 2d) 80 . Non- par r y cor por at e of f i cer s hel d subj ect t o cont empt
wher e t hey ai ded and abet t ed a cor por at e def endant t o br each an i nj unct i on . Royal Bank of
Canada v. Mer chant s Consol i dat ed Lt d. ( 1988) , 55 D. L . R. ( 4t h) 370 ( Man . C. A. ) cour t
or der appoi nt i ng r ecei ver and maki ng or der pur por t i ng t o r est r ai n al l deal er s f r om
col l ect i ng f unds di r ect l y f r om r et ai l er s . Or der not bi ndi ng di r ect l y on non- par t i es t o
r ecei ver shi p .
67
Ambi val ence by Canadi an cour t s on t hi s l ast poi nt has l ed cour t s i n ot her
j ur i sdi ct i ons t o concl ude t hat t he Canadi an j ur i spr udence i s conf used . See t he comment s
of Br owne- Wi l ki nson V. C., and Bal combe L. J. i n t he l ower cour t s deci si on i n A- G. v .
Newspaper Publ i shi ng Pl c. , supr a not e 27 ( Ch. D. & C. A. ) at 344- 45 and 386 r espect i vel y,
and Mar i t i me Uni on v . Pat r i ck St evedor es Oper at i ons, [ 1998] 4 V. R. 143 at 161 ( Vi ct or i a
C. A. ) .
2002] I nj unct i ons - The Abi l i t y t o Bi nd Non- Par t i es 227

V. The Supr eme Cour t of Canada Deci si on i n MacMi l l an

Bl oedel v. Si mpson

I n MacMi l l an Bl oedel v . Si mpson68 t he Supr eme Cour t of Canada conf r ont ed

di r ect l y t he l i abi l i t y of a non- par t y f or cont empt of cour t i n f ai l i ng t o abi de
by an i nj unct i on . The act i on ar ose out of t he cont i nui ng pr ot est s agai nst
mi l l i ng ol d gr owt h f or est s i n Br i t i sh Col umbi a. I n numer ous pr oceedi ngs
t he pl ai nt i f f s successf ul l y obt ai ned a ser i es of i nt er l ocut or y i nj unct i ons
ai med at pr event i ng pr ot est er s f r om bl ocki ng l oggi ng oper at i ons . The
or der s had named def endant s f ol l owed by a gener al descr i pt i on addr essed
t o " John and Jane Doe and Per sons Unknown" , and, " al l per sons havi ng
not i ce of t he or der . " The def endant i n t he pr oceedi ngs bef or e t he Supr eme
Cour t f el l i nt o t he l at t er cat egor y . Af t er t he or der s had been i ssued t he
pol i ce ar r est ed over 800 i ndi vi dual s dur i ng 1993 f or vi ol at i ng t he
i nt er l ocut or y or der s . The or der s speci f i cal l y aut hor i sed pol i ce i nvol vement
t o bot h super vi se t he or der s and t o pr event br eaches of t he peace. 625
peopl e wer e convi ct ed of cr i mi nal cont empt of cour t and sanct i oned by
f i nes up t o $3000 and j ai l t er ms up t o 60 days . MacMi l l an Bl oedel never
br ought ci vi l pr oceedi ngs agai nst t he i ndi vi dual def endant s, and by t he
t i me t he appeal s t o t he i nt er l ocut or y i nj unct i ons wer e hear d, t hey had l ong
si nce l apsed .
Ther e wer e essent i al l y t hr ee gr ounds of appeal . The f i r st gr ound r el at ed
t o t he j ur i sdi ct i on of t he cour t t o gr ant an i nj unct i on agai nst t he publ i c i n
a ci vi l mat t er pr event i ng conduct whi ch pr oper l y f el l wi t hi n t he cr i mi nal
l aw and t hat was amenabl e t o cr i mi nal pr osecut i on by t he At t or ney-
Gener al . At t he t i me of t he act i on t he At t or ney- Gener al had t aken t he
deci si on not t o l odge cr i mi nal char ges agai nst t he pr ot est er s, pr ef er r i ng t o
l eave i t t o t he i ndi vi dual af f ect ed pr oper t y owner s t hr ough t he ci vi l cour t s .
Owi ng t o t he At t or ney- Gener al ' s deci si on not t o act , MacMi l l an Bl oedel
had i n f act advanced t hei r i nj unct i on appl i cat i ons . The Supr eme Cour t
char act er i sed t he di sput e as one bet ween publ i c r i ght s t o pr ot est and
di ssent , and t he mai nt enance of pr i vat e r i ght s of l and hol der s t o use t hei r
l and . However , t he si mpl e deci si on of t he At t or ney- Gener al not t o t ake
cr i mi nal pr oceedi ngs di d not l eave t he pl ai nt i f f wi t hout r emedy . Wher e a
pr i vat e l i t i gant ' s own pr oper t y r i ght s wer e af f ect ed by cr i mi nal conduct t he
l i t i gant had st andi ng t o i nvoke t he cour t ' s j ur i sdi ct i on wi t hout t he need t o
seek pr i or appr oval of t he At t or ney- Gener al . Thi s was a si mpl e af f i r mat i on
by t he Supr eme Cour t of t he pr i nci pl es appl i cabl e wher e a pr i vat e par t y
wi shes t o br i ng an act i on f or a publ i c nui sance, and who i s i ndi vi dual l y and
speci f i cal l y af f ect ed over ot her member s of t he publ i c .
The second gr ound r el at ed t o t he abi l i t y of a cour t t o gr ant an or der
agai nst non- par t i es . The appel l ant s ar gued t hat a cour t coul d onl y make an

68 Supr a not e 2 .
228 LA REVUE DU BARREAUCANADI EN [ Vol . 81

or der agai nst a par t y t o t he pr oceedi ngs, and l acked j ur i sdi ct i on t o do

ot her wi se . I n t he Br i t i sh Col umbi a Cour t of Appeal , Wood J . A. , i n di ssent ,
f ound t hi s ar gument compel l i ng . 69 McLachl i n J . , f or t he cour t , consi der ed
t hi s ar gument f r omt he gr ounds of exi st i ng pr ecedent s and f r omt he pol i cy
i mpl i cat i ons t hat adher ence t o i t woul d have f or t he r ul e of l aw i n Canada .
McLachl i n J . r ecogni zed t he di f f er ence bet ween bei ng bound by t he
i nj unct i on as a named par t y, and bei ng bound t o obey an i nj unct i on because
one becomes awar e of i t s t er ms . McLacbl i n J . di d not seek t o change t hi s
di st i nct i on . McLachl i n J . t hen r i ght l y asser t ed t hat t he Engl i sh cour t s have
hel d a non- par t y l i abl e f or cont empt f or obst r uct i on of j ust i ce wher e t hey
have act ed i ndependent l y, and not j ust f or ai di ng and abet t i ng t he named
def endant . Af t er anal ysi ng t he Canadi an and Engl i sh pr ecedent s McLachl i n
J . concl uded as f ol l ows :

I t may be conf i dent l y asser t ed, t her ef or e, t hat bot h Engl i sh and Canadi an
aut hor i t i es suppor t t he vi ew t hat non- par t i es ar e bound by i nj unct i ons : i f non-
par t i es vi ol at e i nj unct i ons, t hey ar e subj ect t o convi ct i on and puni shment f or
cont empt of cour t . The cour t s have j ur i sdi ct i on t o gr ant i nt er i m i nj unct i ons
whi ch al l peopl e, on pai n of cont empt , must obey . The onl y i ssue - and one
whi ch has pr eoccupi ed cour t s bot h i n Engl and and, t o a l esser ext ent , her e - i s
whet her t he wor di ng of t he i nj unct i on shoul d war n non- par t i es t hat t hey, t oo,
may be af f ect ed by i ncl udi ng l anguage enj oi ni ng t he publ i c, or cl asses of t he
publ i c, f r om commi t t i ng t he pr ohi bi t ed act s . On t hi s poi nt I shar e t he vi ew of
Tysoe J . A. i n Bar t l e & Gi bson, and Est ey J . i n I nt er nat i onal Longs hor emen
Associ at i on : i f member s of t he publ i c may be bound t o r espect cour t or der s i n
pr i vat e sui t s on pai n of bei nghel d i n cont empt , i t seems appr opr i at e t hat t he or der
appr i se t hem of t hat f act . 7°

On t he i ssue of what r el evant pol i cy i mpl i cat i ons i nf or med t he cour t ' s
deci si on, McLachl i n J . asked r het or i cal l y, " what ar e t he danger s of
empower i ng t he cour t s t o make or der s t o pr ot ect pr i vat e i nt er est s whi ch al l
must obey on pai n of cont empt ?" 71 To t hi s, McLachl i n J . answer ed, t hat
whi l e mai nt enance of t he r ul e of l aw necessi t at ed such j ur i sdi ct i on and
or der s, t hey can onl y be made wher e t he publ i c has been appr i sed of t he
or der and gi ven an oppor t uni t y t o compl y . I n addi t i on, ci r cumspect i on must
be exer ci sed so t hat t he or der s ar e not dr af t ed i n undul y br oad t er ms .
Wher eas Wood J . A. , i n t he Cour t of Appeal , had concl uded t hat t he cour t
shoul d not exer ci se j ur i sdi ct i on but i nsi st t hat t he At t or ney- Gener al act
i nst ead, McLachl i n J . opi ned t hat t he cour t ' s equi t abl e j ur i sdi ct i on t o gr ant
i nj unct i ons was desi gned t o f i l l t he ver y gap t hat t he At t or ney- Gener al ' s
act i ons i n t hi s case had made, necessar y .
The t hi r d gr ound of appeal r ai sed t he i ssue of whet her an act i on coul d
be l aunched agai nst unnamed per sons usi ng t he appel l at i on, John and Jane

69
Sapr a not e 5 at 30- 43 .
70 Supr a not e 2 at 1064- 65.
71
I bi d. at 1067.
20021 I nj unct i ons - The Abi l i t y t o Bi nd Non- Par t i es 22 9

Doe and Per sons Unknown . On t hi s poi nt McLachl i n J . hel d t hat t he cour t
di d not have t o answer t he i ssue based on i t s f i ndi ngs t hat even a non- par t y
was dut y bound t o compl y wi t h a cour t or der . However , she di d obser ve t hat
t he ar gument r eal l y r ai sed a mat t er of pl eadi ngs and t hat no aut hor i t y had
been gi ven whi ch suggest ed t he appel l at i on as i nval i dat i ng t he pr oceedi ngs
or or der .

VI . Anal ysi s and Obser vat i ons of MacMi l l an Bl oedel v. Si mpson

McLachl i n J . ' s j udgment i s open t o a number of obser vat i ons . Fi r st , i t i s an

over si mpl i f i cat i on of t he Engl i sh posi t i on t o suggest t hat a non- par t y
woul d be t r eat ed i n, a si mi l ar f ashi on i n t hat j ur i sdi ct i on . As di scussed
ear l i er , t he Engl i sh posi t i on i s f ar mor e ci r cumspect on f i ndi ng cont empt
wher e i t i s al l eged t hat t he cont emnor has act ed t o i nt er f er e or i mpede t he
admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce, and even t hen i t must be cr i mi nal cont empt . I n
addi t i on, t he const i t uent el ement s of t he cr i mi nal cont empt r equi r e an
act ual mens r ea of i nt endi ng t o i mpede t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce, and t he
act us r eus of act ual l y havi ng t hat af f ect . The appr oach i n MacMi l l an
Bl oedel does not speci f i cal l y di scuss t he const i t uent el ement s of t he al l eged
cont empt but suggest s t hat mer e knowl edge of t he i nj unct i on and t he
car r yi ng out of t he enj oi ned act ar e suf f i ci ent . I ndeed, al t hough i n t he l ower
cour t s t he non- par t i es had al l been convi ct ed of cr i mi nal cont empt , i t woul d
appear f r om McLachl i n J . ' s j udgment t hat t he act i ons of a non- par t y i n
f ai l i ng t o compl y wi t h an i nj unct i on once t hey have not i ce of i t , does not
necessar i l y r esul t i n a char ge of cr i mi nal cont empt excl usi vel y . I n some
cases subsequent t o MacMi l l an Bl oedel t he cour t s have been wi l l i ng t o hol d
a non- par t y gui l t y of ci vi l cont empt al one . 72 I f cr i mi nal cont empt i s t he
appr opr i at e char ge f or non- par t i es who f ai l t o obey a cour t i nj unct i on t hen,
pr esumabl y, t he r equi si t e mens r ea and act us r eus r equi r ement s enunci at ed
i n Uni t ed Nur ses of Al ber t a v. Al ber t a ( A. G.) 73 woul d be appl i cabl e . I n t hat
case t he Al ber t a nur ses, who wer e embr oi l ed i n a l abour di sput e, openl y
def i ed a Labour Boar d or der whi ch had been f i l ed i n cour t r equi r i ng t hemt o
r et ur n t o wor k . I n t hat case t he maj or i t y est abl i shed t hat f or cr i mi nal cont empt :

. . . t he Cr own must pr ove t hat t he accused def i ed or di sobeyed a cour t or der i n a

publ i c way ( t he act us r eus) , wi t h i nt ent , knowl edge or r eckl essness as t o t he f act
t hat t he publ i c di sobedi ence wi l l t end t o depr eci at e t he aut hor i t y of t he cour t ( t he
mens r ea) . The Cr own must pr ove t hese el ement s beyond a r easonabl e doubt . As

72 See Mer c k
& Co. v . Nu- Phann I nc. ( 2000) , 9 C. P. R. ( 4t h) 379 ( F . C. T. D. ) cour t
r ef usi ng t o st r i ke out pl eadi ngs whi chr ai sed t hei ssue of whet her anon- par t y coul dbe hel d
l i abl e f or ci vi l cont empt . I n I nt er nat i onal For est Pr oduct s Lt d. v . Ker n ( 2000) , 144
B. C. A. C. 141, non- par t i es pl ead gui l t y t o ci vi l cont empt . Appeal on appr opr i at eness of
sent ences i mposed .
73
[ 199211 S. C. R. 901 .
230 THECANADI AN BARREVI EW [ Vo1 . 81

i n ot her cr i mi nal of f ences, however , t he necessar y mens r ea may be i nf er r ed

f r omt he ci r cumst ances . An open and publ i c def i ance of a cour t or der wi l l t end
t o depr eci at e t he aut hor i t y of t he cour t . Ther ef or e when i t i s cl ear t he accused
must have known hi s or her act of def i ance wi l l be publ i c, i t may be i nf er r ed t hat
he or she was at l east r eckl ess as t o whet her t he aut hor i t y of t he cour t woul d be
br ought i nt o cont empt . 74

A mi nor i t y opi ni on del i ver ed by Cor y J . , di f f er ed i n t hat t he act us r ear s

r equi r ed t he c r own t o pr ove t hat t he cont emnor ' s conduct " must be conduct
whi ch causes a ser i ous publ i c i nj ur y" . 75 Cor y J . f ound t hat t he act i ons of t he
nur ses di d not const i t ut e a ser i ous publ i c i nj ur y i n t hat t hei r act i ons, whi l e
amount i ng t o ci vi l cont empt , r ai sed no t hr eat of publ i c vi ol ence nor di d t hey
f l aunt t hei r di sobedi ence publ i cl y . Cor y J . ' s demand f or act ual pr oof of a
` ser i ous publ i c i nj ur y' i s cl oser t o t he Engl i sh r equi r ement , i n t he cont ext of a
cr i mi nal cont empt al l egat i on f or i mpedi ng t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce,
t hat t he cont emnor ' s act i ons mus t f r ust r at e t he mai n pur pose f or whi ch t he
cour t gr ant ed t he i nj unct i on i n t he i ni t i al pr oceedi ngs . Bot h r equi r e pr oof
of act ual r esul t ant har m( i . e . ei t her ser i ous publ i c har mor f r ust r at ed mai n
pur pose) , wher eas t he maj or i t y' s opi ni on r equi r es onl y open publ i c def i ance
r egar dl ess of whet her t he cont emnor ' s act i ons have had, or ar e l i kel y t o
have, any ef f ect on t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce .

I t i s di f f i cul t t o c ompar e t he Engl i sh deci si ons i nvol vi ng br each of

conf i dent i al i t y t o Canadi an deci si ons i nvol vi ng ci vi l di sobedi ence. However ,
i n Mar i t i me Uni on v . Pat r i ck St evedor es Oper at i ons 76 , The Vi ct or i a Cour t
of Appeal was asked t o r ul e on t he pr opr i et y of an i nt er l ocut or y i nj unct i on
i ssued agai nst bot h named and unnamed par t i es who wer e engaged i n
pi cket i ng t he pl ai nt i f f ' s whar f dur i ng an ext r emel y acr i moni ous l abour
conf r ont at i on. The cour t , af t er r evi ewi ng bot h Engl i sh and Canadi an aut hor i t i es
( al t hough not Mac Mi l l an Bl oedel ) , and f i ndi ng t he l at t er conf usi ng,
concl uded t hat t her e was no j ur i sdi ct i on t o i ssue an i nj unct i on agai nst non-
par t i es and t hat t hey coul d onl y be hel d l i abl e wher e t hey ai ded and abet t ed
t he named par t i es i n br eachi ng t he i nj unct i on . The Vi ct or i a Cour t ' s deci si on
does not speci f i cal l y addr ess t he i ssue of when a non- par t y who vi ol at es an
i nj unct i on can be hel d i n cont empt f or i mpedi ng t he admi ni st r at i on of
j ust i ce, but i t i s f ur t her evi dence of j udi ci al r est r ai nt and gr ave concer n over
r ushi ng headst r ong i nt o hol di ng non- par t i es subj ect t o i nj unct i ons,
par t i cul ar l y, i n t he cont ext of mass ci vi l di sobedi ence .

Asecond obser vat i on concer ns t he Supr eme Cour t of Canada' s bel i ef

t hat t he r ul e of l aw i s i mper i l l ed i f such j ur i sdi ct i on agai nst non- par t i es i s
not exer ci sed . I n compar abl e si t uat i ons i n ot her j ur i sdi ct i ons, not abl y
Engl and and Aust r al i a, cour t s have not f el t a si mi l ar compul si on t o act . A
subsi di ar y i ssue i s t he appr opr i at eness of r esor t i ng t o cont empt of cour t

74
I bi d at 933 per McLachl i n J .
75
I bi d. at 913.
76
Supr a not e 67 .
2002] I nj unct i ons - The Abi l i t y t o Bi nd Non- Par t i es 23 1

when ot her possi bl e avenues t o deal wi t h t he pl ai nt i f f ' s ci r cumst ances

exi st . I n MacMi l l an Bl oedel Mc Lac hl i n J . c omment ed upon t he l ack of
r esponse by t he At t or ney Gener al t o r esor t t o cr i mi nal pr osecut i ons, but
sai d t hat t hi s f act al one di d not depr i ve t he pr i vat e i ndi vi dual of r esor t t o
seek r el i ef f r om a ci vi l cour t . I n a subsequent ar t i cl e wr i t t en by Ami r
At t ar an77 on MacMi l l an Bl oedel t he suggest i on was made t hat a bet t er
r esponse woul d be f or t he pl ai nt i f f t o seek mandamus agai nst bot h t he
At t or ney Gener al and t he pol i ce t o do t hei r dut y and cr i mi nal l y pr osecut e
t he pr ot est er s . 78 Thi s suggest i on has i t sel f gener at ed an unusual amount of
j udi ci al c omment ar y . The i dea was r ej ect ed by t he Br i t i sh Col umbi a Cour t
of Appeal i n I nt er nat i onal For est Pr oduct s Lt d. v . Ker n 79 l ar gel y on t he
basi s t hat t he cour t accept ed t he asser t i ons by t he At t or ney Gener al t hat t he
ci vi l i nj unct i on and cont empt pr ocess was mor e ef f ect i ve i n t hat i t was
expedi t i ous and avoi ded t he t echni cal i t i es of r ar el y used Cr i mi nal Code
pr ovi si ons . However , at l east t wo l ower cour t deci si ons have f ound mer i t
i n t he pr oposal . 80 I ndeed, t he j udgment of Mc Ewan J . i n Sl ocan For est
Pr oduct s Lt d. v . John Doesl r ai ses a di st ur bi ng pi ct ur e of howt he use of
t he ci vi l i nj unct i on and c ommens ur at e cont empt pr oceedi ngs has bec ome
t he pr ef er r ed met hod of handl i ng al l pr ot est er s and ci vi l di sobedi ence i n t he
Wes t Coast l umber di sput es . The i nvi di ous posi t i on of t he cour t i s t hat i t i s
f or ced t o sacr i f i ce i t s own publ i c est eem and aut hor i t y t o pr eser ve t he
At t or ney Gener al ' s i n what i s an ext r emel y heat ed and pol i t i cal l y sensi t i ve
cl i mat e . 82 The r epeat ed f r equency of t hi s f or m of act i on t hr eat ens t o l ower
t he publ i c' s per cept i on of t he cour t s as i ndependent di spenser s of l aw and
t ur n t hem i nt o a pseudo- l egi sl at i ve ar m of t he f or est r y i ndust r y . I t was
l ar gel y si mi l ar ar gument s t hat l ead Cor y J . t o exer ci se ext r eme caut i on i n
deci di ng whet her t o hol d t he Al ber t a nur ses f or cr i mi nal cont empt i n t hei r
l abour di sput e - namel y a f ear t hat publ i c per cept i on of cour t s i n l abour
di sput es woul d be t o see t he cour t as an ar m of gov er nment t o i mpose
cr ushi ng penal t i es on t r ade uni ons . The l ack of i nvol vement of t he At t or ney
Gener al al so has ot her i nt er est i ng r ami f i cat i ons . As poi nt ed out by Jul i a
Lawn i n her ar t i cl e, because t he di sput e i s kept at t he l evel of pr i vat e ci vi l

77 " Mandamus i n t he Enf or cement of t he Cr i mi nal Law: Endi ng t he Ant i - Pr ot est

I nj unct i on Habi t - I ssues ar i si ng f r om MacMi l l an Bl oedel v . Si mpson" ( 1999) 33
U. B. C. L . Rev. 181 .
7$ See al so t he suggest i on of Sout hi n J . A. i n Ever ywoman' s Heal t h Cent r e Soci et y v .
Br i dges ( 1990) , 54 B. C. L. R. ( 2d) 273 ( C. A. ) at 285.
79
Supr a not e 72 .
so - See Al l i f or d Bay Loggi ng ( Nanai mo) Lt d. v . Mychaj l owycz ( 2001) , 85 B. C. L. R.
( 3d) 154 ( S. C. ) and Sl ocan For est Pr oduct sLt d . v . JohnDoe, [ 2000] B. C. J. No . 1592 ( S. C. )
( Q. L . ) .
81
I bi d. at par as . 47- 49.
82
The i r ony t hat t he At t or ney Gener al who i ni t i al l y washed hi s hands of t he f r ay i n
deci di ng not t o pr osecut e cr i mi nal l y pr ot est er s, but t hen r et ur ned t o l ead t he char ge wher e
a char ge of cr i mi nal cont empt i s l ai d ( see ( 2001) B. C. J . No . 2362 ( S. C. ) ( Q. L. ) ) , has not
been l ost on some . See J. Lawn, " The John Doe I nj unct i on i n Mass Pr ot est Cases" ( 1998)
56 U. of T. Fac . L. Rev. 10 1 at 108.
232 LA REVUE DU BARREAU CANADI EN [ Vol . 81

l i t i gat i on, t he abi l i t y t o r ai se Char t er ar gument s i s l ost . Yet , t hese same

ar gument s may have a r eal bear i ng on t he gr ant i ng and br eadt h of t he
i nj unct i on wher e i t i mpact s upon r i ght s of pr ot est and speech. 83
One of t he ar gument s i n f avour of t he ci vi l i nj unct i on and cont empt
pr oceedi ngs i s t hat i t i s expedi t i ous because i t di spenses wi t h many of t he
pr ocedur al r equi r ement s of Cr i mi nal Code char ges . For exampl e, i n Sl ocan
For est Pr oduct s Lt d. v . John Doe Mc Ewan J . quot es ext ensi vel y f r omt he
Br i t i sh Col umbi a At t or ney Gener al ' s pol i cy document whi ch i l l ust r at ed
t he r el at i ve success of t he pol i cy . I t st at ed :

For exampl e, i n 1989 bef or e Br i t i sh Col umbi a had a ci vi l di sobedi ence pol i cy,
70 i ndi vi dual s wer e pr osecut ed on Cr i mi nal Code char ges r el at i ng t o pr ot est s
agai nst mi ni ng i n Br i t i sh Col umbi a' s St r at hcona Par k . Not wi t hst andi ng t he
di sr upt i on of l oggi ng act i vi t i es, si xt y- seven of t he accused wer e acqui t t ed of
char ges of mi schi ef . Onl y t hr ee per sons wer e convi ct ed and t hey r ecei ved mi nor
sent ences . The t r i al s l ast ed over a per i od of 18 mont hs .

Compar e t hi s t o ci vi l di sobedi ence at Cl ayoquot Sound i n t he summer of 1993

wher e mor e t han 700 peopl e who di sobeyed an i nj unct i on wer e pr osecut ed f or
cr i mi nal cont empt . Pol i ce r esponded swi f t l y i n maki ng ar r est s . The t r i al s wer e
concl uded over a per i od of ei ght mont hs . Al most al l t hose pr osecut ed wer e
convi ct ed and t he aver age j ai l sent ence was t hr ee weeks, ser ved usual l y on
el ect r oni c moni t or i ng . $¢

By any st r et ch of t he i magi nat i on t hese ar e l ar ge number s of non- par t i es

bei ng hel d l i abl e f or cr i mi nal cont empt ar i si ng f r oma pr i vat e ci vi l act i on
bet ween named par t i es . Agai nst t he r et i cence of t he Engl i sh cour t s t o
exer ci sej ur i sdi ct i on agai nst non- par t i es f or i nt er f er ence i n t he admi ni st r at i on
of j ust i ce, Canadi an cour t s appear down r i ght pr of l i gat e .
A t hi r d obser vat i on concer ns t he r el at i onshi p bet ween non- par t i es and
f i nal , r at her t han i nt er l ocut or y, i nj unct i ons . I nMacMi l l an Bl oedel McLachl i n
J . not ed t he caut i ous appr oach of t he Ont ar i o Cour t of Appeal i n Sandwi ch
West ( Townshi p) v . Bubu Est at es Lt d . 85 Ther e, t he cour t i ndi cat ed t hat i t

83
I bi d. at 131, and see f or exampl e Ont ar i o ( A. G.) v . Di el ei nan ( 1994) , 20 O. R. ( 3d)
229 ( Gen. Di v. ) f or t he ar gument s t hat can be r ai sed when i t i s t he At t or ney Gener al who
seeks t he i nj unct i on t o pr ovent ci vi l unr est .
84 Supr a not e 80 at par a . 23, ci t i ng C. Gabel mann, " Br i t i sh Col umbi a' s Ci vi l
Di sobedi ence Pol i cy - A Measur ed Response" .
85 ( 1986) , 30 D. L. R. ( 41 h ) 477 ( Ont . C. A. ) . The t ownshi p had been successf ul i n
gai ni ng an i nj unct i on r equi r i ng t he named def endant and any ot her pr oper t y owner s who
had knowl edge of t he or der t o compl y wi t h a cer t ai n by- l aw. I n subsequent pr oceedi ngs
br ought f or cont empt agai nst non- par t i es t he t r i al j udge had di smi ssed t he cont empt
char ges but wi t hout pr ej udi ce t o t he t ownshi p t o r el ay t hem af t er i t had exer ci sed i t s
al t er nat i ve enf or cement r i ght s . The ul t i mat e ef f ect of t he or der was t o al l ow t he det er mi nat i on
of t he r i ght s of al l pr oper t y owner s i n t he di sput ed subdi vi si on t o depend on t he success of
act i ons agai nst a f ew named def endant s . See al so R. J . Shar pe, I nj unct i ons and Speci f i c
Per f or mance ( Tor ont o: Canada LawBook, 1992) at 9[ 6 . 270.
2002] I nj unct i ons - The Abi l i t y t o Bi nd Non- Par t i es 23 3

was i nappr opr i at e t o det er mi ne t he r i ght s of non- par t i es over l and usage i n
a subdi vi si on, wi t hout havi ng hear d f r omt hem, based on a f i nal set t l ement
consent or der made wi t h t he named def endant s . 86 The l egal demar cat i on
bet ween f i nal and i nt er l ocut or y pr oceedi ngs i s cl ear , however , t he pr ocedur al
pr act i cal i t i es ar e a l i t t l e l ess so. Of t en, t he pl ai nt i f f has no i nt ent i on t o pr oceed
t o j udgment af t er gai ni ng an ef f ect i ve i nt er l ocut or y or der . I ndeed, t he pl ai nt i f f
i n MacMi l l an Bl oedel never pr oceeded t o f i nal j udgment . agai nst t he named
def endant s . The l ack of ef f ect i ve t i me l i mi t s on t he val i di t y of i nt er l ocut or y
or der s can al so r esul t i n cont empt pr oceedi ngs bei ng br ought year s af t er t he
i nj unct i on was gr ant ed. For exampl e, Jul i a Lawn poi nt s out t hat i n one case a
def endant was convi ct ed of cont empt seven year s af t er t he i nt er l ocut or y
i nj unct i on had been gr ant ed. 87
Apar t f r om cost and i nconveni ence, i t i s st i l l possi bl e f or any named
def endant t o def end i n i nt er l ocut or y pr oceedi ngs and t o have hi s or her day i n
cour t . I n t he case of cont empt pr oceedi ngs agai nst a named def endant i t i s
al ways possi bl e f or t he def endant t o ar gue over t he pr opr i et y of t he or i gi nal
or der , al t hough t hey may be r equi r ed t o pur ge t hei r cont empt bef or e bei ng
al l owed t o cont i nue t hei r def ence . 88 However , i n t he case of a non- par t y t he
onl y i ssue f or t he cour t i s whet her t hey have commi t t ed t he cont empt
al l eged. Because t her e i s no act i on bet ween t he par t i es t her e i s not hi ng f or
t he non- par t y t o cont est . I n f act t he val i di t y of t he i nj unct i on i s qui t e
i r r el evant because even an i nval i d i nj unct i on must be obeyed unt i l i t i s set
asi de. s 9 I n addi t i on, because t he mens r ea el ement of t he cont empt onl y
f ocusses upon whet her t he non- par t y has t he r equi si t e i nt ent t o act i n
def i ance of t he cour t ' s or der ; whi ch can i t sel f be i nf er r ed f r om act i ng
publ i el y, 90 a non- par t y never has an oppor t uni t y t o expl ai n why he or she
act ed i n def i ance of t he cour t or der , or why t he or der shoul d not have been
gr ant ed i n t he f i r st pl ace . As Jul i a Lawn i dent i f i es, t he pr ot est er s i n
MacMi l l an Bl oedel f ound t he cour t ' s di si nt er est i n t hei r subst ant i ve mer i t s
f or act i ng t he way t hey had, qui t e bi zar r e . 91 I n cont r ast , Cor y J. i n hi s

86
See al so t he deci si on of t he Feder al Cour t of Appeal i n Mont r es Rol ex S. A. v.
Bal shi n, supr a not e 3 whi ch decl i ne t o al l ow a f i nal John and Jane Doe or der t o have
pr ospect i ve ef f ect . Di scussed i nf r a .
87 Supr a not e 82 at 122 ci t i ng R. v . Wat son ( 1996) , 22 B. C. L. R. ( 3d) I ( S. C. ) .
$$ Ont ar i o ( A. G. ) v. Paul Magder Fur s Lt d. ( 1991) , 6 O. R. ( 3d) 188 ( C. A. ) .
89 Canada ( Human Ri ght s Commi ssi on) v. Canadi an Li ber t y Net , [ 1998] 1 S. C. R.
626.
90 I n Uni t ed Nur ses of Al ber t a v. Al ber t a ( A. G.) , supr a not e 73 at 913, Cor y J . poi nt s
out t he di f f i cul t y i n t he maj or i t y' s j udgment whi ch made act i ng i n publ i c t he cent r al f eat ur e
of t he di st i nct i on bet ween ci vi l and cr i mi nal cont empt . Such an appr oach r epl aces t he
f unct i onal di st i nct i on bet ween ci vi l andcr i mi nal cont empt ( i . e: t he f or mer f ocussi ng upon
ensur i ng t hat t he pl ai nt i f f ' s i nt er est i n gai ni ng compl i ance ar emet , t hel at t er f ocussi ng upon
t he cour t ' s i nt er est i n havi ng i t s or der s obeyed so t hat t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce i s not
l edi nt o di sr eput e) wi t h one pur el y cent r ed on t he publ i ci t y at t ached t o t he cont emnor ' s act .
91
Supr a not e 82 at 105.
234 THE CANADI AN BARREVI EW [ Vo1 . 81

di ssent i ng opi ni on i n Uni t ed Nur ses of Al ber t a v . Al ber t a ( A. G.) 92 t hought

t he f act t hat t he l eader of t he Al ber t a Nur ses Associ at i on act ed wi t h
r et i cence when bei ng i nt er vi ewed by t he medi a, r ef r ai ned t o agr ee wi t h a
r epor t er ' s suggest i on t hat t he ` l aw was an ass' , and si mpl y pr esent ed t he
nur ses' gr i evances wi t h t hei r empl oyer so as t o mi ni mi ze any di sr espect
shown t o t he cour t , wer e al l r el evant t o det er mi ne whet her t he char ge of
cr i mi nal cont empt , as agai nst ci vi l cont empt , had been pr oved. Under t he
maj or i t y' s appr oach t hese consi der at i ons wer e i r r el evant . Thi s i s not t o
suggest t hat Cor y J . woul d have deci ded di f f er ent l y i n MacMi l l an Bl oedel ,
i ndeed he was par t of t he cour t t hat hear d t hat case and di d not r ender hi s
own j udgment , however , I do suggest t hat t he cr i t er i a est abl i shed by Cor y
J . t o det er mi ne cr i mi nal cont empt woul d at l east per mi t non- par t i es t o r ai se
i ssues on why t hey act ed t he way t hey had and why t hei r act i ons di d not
amount t o a publ i c i nj ur y .
Af i nal obser vat i on, al t hough not one ar i si ng di r ect l y out of McLachl i n
J . ' s j udgment , concer ns t he br eadt h of t he or der s whi ch have been made t o
cont r ol ci vi l di sobedi ence . I n MacMi l l an Bl oedel t he or der was car ef ul l y
wor ded so as t o onl y pr event obst r uct i on of a br i dge l eadi ng t o t he
pl ai nt i f f ' s wor k si t e. However , i n anot her case, At co Lumber Lt d. v .
Faust , 93 t he cour t ' s or der t o r est r i ct al l per sons f r omcomi ng wi t hi n 1000
met r es of t he pl ai nt i f f ' s l oggi ng r oad had t he ef f ect of pr event i ng some non-
par t i es f r omhavi ng access t o t hei r r esi dences . The ex par t e i nj unct i on was
set asi de on t he basi s t hat t hese af f ect ed par t i es had not been gi ven not i ce .
Recal l t hat i n A. - G. v . Ti mes Newspaper Lt d. 94 a number of t he LawLor ds
caut i oned agai nst or der s bei ng over l y br oad and t hus i mpi ngi ng on t he
l egi t i mat e pur sui t of a non- par t y' s own sel f - i nt er est even wher e t hat had t he
ef f ect of f r ust r at i ng t he pur pose of t he i nj unct i on or der . At co Lumber Lt d
demonst r at es t he need f or t hat caut i onar y appr oach . An over l y br oad
i nj unct i on may al so obscur e t he mai n pur pose of t he or der . I n Engl and t hat
woul d be f at al t o any char ge of cr i mi nal cont empt based on i nt er f er ence of
t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce. I n Canada t he same woul d not be t r ue . The
onl y i ssue woul d be a det er mi nat i on of whet her t he non- par t y had vi ol at ed
t he i nj unct i on i n a publ i c manner . Anot her pr obl em wi t h an over l y br oad
i nj unct i on t hat i nt er f er es wi t h t he pur sui t of l egi t i mat e act i vi t i es of non-
par t i es i s t hat whi l e t he i nt er f er ence may gi ve r i se t o an i ndependent act i on
by t he non- par t y agai nst t he pl ai nt i f f , i t may gi ve no r i ght t o seek r ecover y
pur suant t o t he damages under t aki ng gi ven by t he pl ai nt i f f as a st andar d
r equi r ement f or an i nt er l ocut or y i nj unct i on . 95

92
Supr a not e 73 at 922- 23 .
93
Unr epor t ed [ 1991] B. C. J . No . 3415 ( S. C. ) ( Q. L. ) f ur t her r easons [ 1991] B. C. J . No .
3636 ( S. C. ) ( Q. L. ) , and see t he di scussi on i n Lawn, supr a not e 82 at 123.
94
Supr a not e 19 .
9s
The non- par t y i s not adef endant nor i s hi s or her conduct speci f i cal l y enj oi ned. I n
addi t i on t he pl ai nt i f f has not wr ongf ul l y obt ai ned t he i nt er l ocut or y i nj unct i on . Equal l y, t he
pr opr i et y of t he i nj unct i on i s not a r el evant i ssue at t he t i me t hat t he non- par t y i s char ged
2002] I nj unct i ons - The Abi l i t y t o Bi nd Non- Par t i es 23 5

Af undament al pr i nci pl e of our j ust i ce syst em i s t he r i ght t o be hear d

bef or e bei ng made subj ect t o a cour t or der . Acent r al pr obl emwi t h t he way
t hat t he l awhas devel oped i n Canada i s t hat , not onl y have non- par t i es been
depr i ved of a r i ght t o be hear d bef or e an or der i s made, but t hat t hey have
been depr i ved of any r i ght t o be hear d at al l . 96 Thi s posi t i on i s exacer bat ed
when t he pl ai nt i f f ' s act i on i s br ought ei t her ex par t e, or agai nst t he
ant hr opomor phi c John and Jane Doe, and has onl y had t o meet a f ai r l y l ow
t hr eshol d t est , wi t hout chal l enge f r om a known named def endant , bef or e
bei ng gr ant ed an i nt er l ocut or y i nj unct i on . Whi l e a si mi l ar posi t i on pr evai l s
i n Engl and, i t i s mi t i gat ed by t he gener al l y mor e ci r cumspect r ever ence
gi ven t o t he not i on t hat equi t y can onl y act i n per s onam, and, f ur t her , t he
st r i ngent r equi r ement t hat t he per son who i nt er f er es or i mpedes t he
admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce must act ual l y be pr oven t o have achi eved, and
i nt ended, t hat r esul t bef or e bei ng f ound gui l t y of cr i mi nal cont empt .
I f Canadi an cour t s ar e adamant i n t he di r ect i on t hey ar e cur r ent l y
headi ng, t hey may t hi nk i t appr opr i at e t o pi ck up on a suggest i on made by
Bal combe L. J . i n t he Cour t of Appeal deci si on i n A. - G. v . News paper
Publ i s hi ng Pl c . 97 t hat t he pl ai nt i f f shoul d be r equi r ed t o seek di r ect l y an
i nj unct i on t hat i s i nt ended t o have ef f ect beyond t he named, def endant s and
t o ar gue i t s mer i t s at t hat t i me as a pr i nci pl ed except i on t o t he r ul e t hat
equi t y onl y act s i n per s onam. 98 An al t er nat i ve appr oach t o t he l i abi l i t y of
non- par t i es i s t o r egul ar i ze t hei r st at us by i ncor por at i ng t hem i nt o t he
exi st i ng ci vi l l i t i gat i on pr ocedur e . One way of doi ng t hat i s t o br i ng an
act i on agai nst a r epr esent at i ve def endant , t he ot her i s t he use of t he John
and Jane Doe nomencl at ur e i n t he cause of act i on .

f or cont empt . Ar guabl y, t he non- par t y may have exper i enced a l oss of pr ocedur al r i ght s i n
t hat t he pl ai nt i f f has f ai l ed t o br i ng t o t heat t ent i on of t he cour t t he i mpact of awi del y dr af t ed
or der . See A. Zucker man; " The Under t aki ng i n Damages - Subst ant i ve and Pr ocedur al
Di mensi ons" ( 1994) 53 Camb . L. J. 546 .
96
Thi s appr oach was pi ct ur esquel y descr i bed by Wi nneke P. f or t he cour t i n
Mar i t i me Uni on v . Pat r i ckSt evedor es Oper at i ons supr a not e 67 at 161 as havi ng " t he novel
f eat ur e- whi ch woul d have appeal ed t o Lewi s Car r ol l - t hat i t became bi ndi ng upon . a.
per son onl y because t hat per son was al r eady i n br each of i t . "
97
Supr a not e 27 at 388- 90 . See al so S. Auer back, " Thi r d Par t i es and Cont empt : t he
Spycat cher case" ( 1988) 17 I ndust r i al L. J . 46 at 48- 50 .
98
Seeal so t he suggest i on, made i n t hecont ext of Ant on Pi l l er or der s agai nst John and
Jane Doe and per sons unknown, t hat t he cour t shoul d appoi nt an ami cus cur i ae t o r epr esent
t he unknown par t i es . Per Ander son J . i n Tony Bl ai n Pt y. Lt d. v . Spl ai n, [ 1993] 3 N. Z. L . R.
185 ( H. C. ) .
236) LA REVUE DU BARREAUCANADI EN [ Vol . 81

VI I . Repr esent at i ve Def endant Act i ons

The r espect i ve pr ovi nci al and Feder al Cour t r ul es of ci vi l pr ocedur e99 al l ow

f or a pl ai nt i f f t o commence an act i on agai nst a named def endant as a
r epr esent at i ve cl ass of al l def endant s . These r ul es f ol l ow si mi l ar pr i nci pl es
est abl i shed i n t he Uni t ed Ki ngdom. l oo The r ul es ar e desi gned t o cover bot h
pl ai nt i f f and def endant r epr esent at i ve act i ons al t hough i n many Canadi an
j ur i sdi ct i ons pl ai nt i f f s, as a r epr esent at i ve cl ass, now have access t o
speci f i c cl ass act i on l egi sl at i on . Al t hough t her e i s a l ong hi st or y t o t hi s r ul e
i n Chancer y pr act i ce, l 01 l i t t l e moder n r esor t has been made t o i t t o have
def endant s r epr esent ed by a r epr esent at i ve def endant . As expl ai ned i n t he
Ont ar i o Law Ref or mCommi ssi on Repor t on Cl ass Act i ons, 102 t her e have
been essent i al l y t wo cat egor i es of cases whi ch have ut i l i zed t hi s r ul e . One
cat egor y cover s act i ons br ought agai nst an uni ncor por at ed associ at i on or
t r ade uni on wher e a - uni on or associ at i on r epr esent at i ve i s made t he
r epr esent at i ve f or t he uni on or associ at i on member shi p as a whol e . Thi s
appr oach was necessi t at ed because of a l acuna i n t he l aw whi ch di d not
hi st or i cal l y accor d any l egal st at us t o an uni ncor por at ed associ at i on . I n t hi s
cat egor y an act i on ut i l i zi ng a r epr esent at i ve def endant i s onl y al l owed t o
pr oceed wher e t her e i s a c ommon f und or pool of asset s and an homogeneous
gr oup of def endant s capabl e of bei ng r epr esent ed by one par t y . 103 The onl y
r eal i ssue i s t he quest i on of l i abi l i t y and t he di st r i but i on of damages, i f t her e
ar e a number of pl ai nt i f f s . The second cat egor y i s wher e t her e i s a c ommon
sui t agai nst a number of def endant s, but t hat t he def endant s have no pr e-
exi st i ng r el at i onshi p ot her t han al l egedl y commi t t i ng i n c ommon t he wr ong
made subj ect of t he pl ai nt i f f ' s act i on . 104
Wi t hi n bot h cat egor i es Canadi an cour t s have adopt ed a f ai r l y r est r i ct i ve
appr oach t o r epr esent at i ve def endant act i ons, par t l y because of t he Supr eme
Cour t of Canada' s r ul i ng i n Naken v . Gener al Mot or s of Canada Lt d. 105
whi ch saw l i t t l e oppor t uni t y i n t he r espect i ve r ul es of ci vi l pr ocedur e t o

99
Feder al Cour t Rul es, 114, Ont ar i o, Rul e 12 . 07 ; Mani t oba Rul e 12. 01 ; Al ber t a Rul e
42 ; and Nova Scot i a Rul e 5 . 09 .
100Uni t ed Ki ngdom Or di nance 15, r ul e 12 .
101
See t he hi st or y di scussed i n B. Wol f son, " Def endant Cl ass Act i ons" ( 1977) 38
Ohi o St at e L . J . 459 .
102 pnt ar i o LawRef or m Commi ssi on, Repor t on Cl ass Act i ons ( 1982) Vol . 1 at 42.
See al so t he di scussi on of t he Al ber t a Law Ref or m Commi ssi on Repor t No . 85, Cl ass
Act i ons ( Dec . 2000) at 170
Loa See Wi l l i st on & Rol l s, The Lawof Ci vi l Pr ocedur e ( Tor ont o : But t er wor t hs, 1970)
at 216- 18, and r ecent l y ci t ed wi t h f avour i n I ndust r i al Har dwood Pr oduct s ( 1996) Lt d. v .
I nt emat i onal Wood and Al l i ed Wor ker s of Canada ( 2001) , 52 O. R. ( 3d) 694 ( C. A. ) at 702 .
104
See f or exampl e Nat i onal Suppl y Company v . Gr eenbank, [ 1941] 3 W . W. R. 711
( Al t a S. C. ) . and Neuv Br unswi ck Br oadcast i ng Co . v . Speaker of House ( N. S. ) ( 1989) , 92
N. S. R. ( 2d) 245 ( T. D. ) .
105
( 1983) , 144 D. L . R. ( 3d) 385 ( S. C. C. ) .
 2002] I nj unct i ons - The Abi l i t y t o Bi nd Non- Par t i es 23 7

advance, and deal wi t h t he c ommens ur at e c ompl ex and t echni cal pr obl ems,
of a cl ass act i on r egi me . 106 Recent l y, a mor e l i ber al appr oach has emer ged
and t he r equi r ement t hat t her e be s ome ascer t ai nabl e f und i n exi st ence has
been down- pl ay ed . 107 Thi s l i ber al i sed appr oach i s consi st ent wi t h
devel opment s i n Engl and, whi c h adopt si mi l ar wor di ng but whi c h now has
addi t i onal pr ovi si ons det ai l i ng pr ocedur al saf eguar ds f or t he def endant . 108

Anot her devel opment , as yet onl y i n Ont ar i o, has been t he ext ensi on of
cl ass act i on l egi sl at i on t o enc ompas s r epr esent at i ve def endant act i ons .
Under t he Ont ar i o Cl ass Pr oceedi ngs Ac t 1992, 109 a par t y c an mov e t o
have pr oceedi ngs cer t i f i ed as a ` cl ass pr oceedi ng' and a par t y appoi nt ed as
a r epr esent at i ve def endant . The Ac t speci f i es t he cr i t er i a f or det er mi ni ng
whet her a cl ass pr oceedi ng can be cer t i f i ed and f ocusses upon t he f ol l owi ng :

whet[ i ] her t he pl eadi ngs di scl ose a cause of act i on;

[ i i ] whet her t her e i s an i dent i f i abl e cl ass of t wo or mor e per sons ;
[ i i i ] t he cl ai ms or def ences of t he cl ass member s r ai se c ommon i ssues ;
[ i v] a cl ass pr oceedi ng woul d be pr ef er abl e f or r esol ut i on of t he c ommon i ssues ;
[ v] t he r epr esent at i ve def endant woul d f ai r l y and adequat el y r epr esent t he
i nt er est of t he cl ass, can pr oduce a wor kabl e pl an f or t he pr oceedi ng on behal f
of t he cl ass, and wi t h r espect t o t he c ommon i nt er est of t he cl ass, does not have
a conf l i ct of i nt er est . ' 10

The abi l i t y t o cer t i f y ar epr esent at i ve def endant was di scussed i n Chi ppewas
of Sar ni a Band v . Canada ( At t or ney Gener al ) . 111 The pl ai nt i f f cl ai med
t i t l e t o cer t ai n l and i n Sar ni a whi c h i t mai nt ai ned had been vi ol at ed by t he
Cr own. Ov er 2, 200 par t i es wer e af f ect ed by t he cl ai m ei t her as cur r ent
owner s or hol di ng ot her encumbr ances over t he t i t l e . The pl ai nt i f f sought
cer t i f i cat i on of r epr esent at i ve def endant s r epr esent i ng si x sub- cl asses of
def endant s . Adams J . r evi ewed bot h t he pr ocedur e under t he Cl ass
Pr oceedi ngs Ac t and t he r epr esent at i ve def endant r ul e 12 . 07. The r at i onal e
f or def endant cl ass act i ons i s t he desi r e t o al l owt he pl ai nt i f f t o pr oceed wi t h
i t s l i t i gat i on wi t hout t he need t o ensur e ever y pot ent i al l y af f ect ed def endant
i s gi ven not i ce of t he pr oceedi ngs and a r i ght t o be hear d, wher e t hat

106 Robi nson v . Adams ( 1924) ,

56 O. L . R. 217 ( C. A. ) . For r ecent appl i cat i on and
di scussi on of t he r ul e appl yi ng ar est r i ct i ve appr oach see ; Mar shal l v . Nat i onal Aut omobi l e,
Aer ospace, Tr anspor t at i on and Gener al Wor ker s Uni on of Canada ( 2000) , 7 C. C. E . L . ( 3d)
267 ( Ont . S . C. ) and, Nat i onal Li f e Assur ance Co. of Canada v . Hucker , [ 2001] O. J. No .
1484 ( Q. L. ) ( Ont . S. C. ) .
107 Gi nt er v . Gar don, [ 2001] O No . 1148 ( Q. L . ) ( Ont . S. C. ) at par as. 24- 28 .
.J.
108
See UK The Supr eme Cour t Pr act i ce 1999 ( The Whi t e Book) Vol . 1 at 15/ 12/ 27.
For i nst ance bef or e t he j udgment agai nst ar epr esent at i ve def endant canbe enf or ced agai nst
ot her def endant s l eave of t he cour t must be gai ned . Once l eave i s gr ant ed t he ot her
def endant i s est opped f r om di sput i ng t he j udgment but may st i l l escape enf or cement i f
" r eason of f act s and mat t er s par t i cul ar t o hi s case" exempt hi mor her f r oml i abi l i t y .
109S .
O. 1992, c . 6 . ss . 3 &4.
110 I bi d. s . 5( 1) .
111 ( 1996) , 290. R. ( 3d) 549 ( Ont . Gen . Di v . ) . See James 1. Reynol ds, " Abor i gi nal t i t l e :
The Chi ppewas of Sar ni a" ( 2002) , 81 Can. Bar Rev . 97 .
238 THECANADI AN BARREVI EW [ V01 . 81

pr ocedur e i s i mpr act i cabl e . The pr ocedur e i s desi gned t o expedi t e t he

l i t i gat i on pr ocess, pr eser ve scar ce j udi ci al r esour ces, maxi mi ze l i t i gant s'
r esour ces by cr eat i ng economi es of scal e, r educe t he oppor t uni t y f or a
mul t i pl i ci t y of pr oceedi ngs over common i ssues, and ensur e a f ai r t r i al
pr ocess . I n t hi s case t he mai n i mpedi ment t o cer t i f yi ng a r epr esent at i ve
def endant was t he unwi l l i ngness of t he named def endant t o be appoi nt ed t o
r epr esent t he cl ass, and t he f ear t hat ot her def endant s woul d speci f i cal l y opt
out of t he cl ass when advi sed of t he cer t i f i cat i on. On t he f i r st i ssue Adams
J . di d not bel i eve t hat t he l egi sl at i on r equi r ed t he consent of t he named
def endant . I n f act , unwi l l i ngness t o ser ve has been seen as a vi r t ue i n
Amer i can cour t s because i t i s a way of ensur i ng a vi gor ous def ence . I n t hi s
case t he named def endant s had empl oyed counsel who wer e ext r emel y
exper i enced i n nat i ve l and cl ai ml i t i gat i on such t hat Adams J . had no doubt
t hat t he def endant cl ass woul d be f ai r l y and adequat el y r epr esent ed. The
possi bi l i t y of ot her def endant s opt i ng out i s a r i ght conf er r ed by t he st at ut e .
Adams J . si mpl y suggest ed t hat i f opt i ng out became a pr obl em, he woul d
r econsi der whet her he shor ul e under r ul e 12 . 07 and make a r epr esent at i on
or der whi ch coul d cont r ol ot her def endant s opt i ng out . Adams J . sawi n t he
Cl ass Pr oc eedi ngs Ac t a compr ehensi ve r egi me t o handl e l i t i gat i on i nvol vi ng
numer ous par t i es whi ch coul d r espond mor e ef f ect i vel y t han a r epr esent at i ve
or der under r ul e 12 . 07. However , i f t he need ar ose, he was qui t e wi l l i ng t o
exer ci se hi s power under r ul e 12 . 07 and make a r epr esent at i ve or der . The
def endant s submi t t ed t hi s as t he bet t er appr oach because t he named
def endant s wer e unwi l l i ng t o assume t he r esponsi bi l i t y of r epr esent i ng t he
cl ass as a whol e, i nvol vi ng as i t woul d, t he pr epar at i on of a ` wor kabl e pl an'
t o advance t he cl ass pr oceedi ng . The pl ai nt i f f obj ect ed t o t he use of r ul e
12 . 07 because i t f ear ed t hat any j udgment whi ch r esul t ed f r om t he
pr oceedi ngs may not wi t hst and t he scr ut i ny of a l at er cour t whi ch may be
i ncl i ned t o vi ew t he j udgment as not bi ndi ng on a t hi r d par t y def endant
unl ess t he par t i cul ar def endant act ual l y par t i ci pat ed i n t he l i t i gat i on . 1 12 I n
addi t i on, i t al so f ear ed t hat i t woul d not be gi ven t he oppor t uni t y t o adduce
evi dence of i t s nat i ve l and cl ai ms i nvol vi ng hi st or y and l egend i n t he way
appr oved by t he Supr eme Cour t of Canada . Whi l e not concedi ng t hesear gument s,
Adams J . si mpl y pr ef er r ed t he compr ehensi ve pr ocess under t he cl ass act i on
l egi sl at i on t o t he r ul e, not i ng al so t hat t he r ul e had been gi ven conser vat i ve
j udi ci al t r eat ment . 113

112The pl ai nt i f f had r el i ed upon Coul son v. Secur e Hol di ngs ( 1976) , 1 C. P. C. 168
( Ont . C. A. ) t o t he ef f ect t hat a cour t or der coul dnot have i n r ei n ef f ect agai nst a t hi r d- par t y
wi t hout af f or di ng t he af f ect ed par t y an oppor t uni t y t o be hear d.
113
Anot her r ecent cer t i f i cat i on of bot h ar epr esent at i ve pl ai nt i f f as wel l as r epr esent at i ve
def endant i n a cl ass act i on di sput e i s Ber r y v . Pul l ey ( 2001) , 197 D. L . R. ( 4a` ) 317 ( S . C. ) .
The pl ai nt i f f has been cer t i f i ed t o commence an act i on based on var i ous economi c t or t s
agai nst a cer t i f i ed def endant i n a di sput e i nvol vi ng t he mer ger of pi l ot s f r omAi r Ont ar i o
i nt o Ai r Canada and t he est abl i shment of a seni or i t y l i st .
2002] I nj unct i ons - The Abi l i t y t o Bi nd Non- Par t i es 23 9

Theconser vat i ve appr oach t o def endant r epr esent at i ve or der s by Canadi an
cour t s may be changi ng as a r esul t of wi despr ead adopt i on of cl ass act i on
pr oceedi ngs l egi sl at i on. Never t hel ess, i t i s i nt er est i ng t o cont r ast t he use of
def endant r epr esent at i ve act i ons i n ot her j ur i sdi ct i ons, and wher e t hey have
been used i n ci r cumst ances wher e Canadi an cour t s have been qui ck t o al l ow
non- par t i es t o be pr osecut ed f or cont empt of cour t .
Exper i ence i n Engl and has shown a wi l l i ngness by cour t s t o use t he
r epr esent at i ve def endant or der t o enabl e pl ai nt i f f s t o br i ng act i ons agai nst
pr ot est er s and t hose who par t i ci pat e i n wi despr ead vi ol at i on of i nt el l ect ual
pr oper t y r i ght s . These act i ons have al so i ncl uded i nt er l ocut or y i nj unct i ons t o
pr event f ur t her t r espass or i nf r i ngement . Most r ecent l y, t he Engl i sh Cour t of
Appeal had t o det er mi ne whet her a r epr esent at i ve def endant act i on was
appr opr i at e i n Monsant o v . Ti l l y and Ot her s . 114 The pl ai nt i f f had ent er ed i nt o
a number of cont r act s wi t h f ar mer s f or t he exper i ment al pur pose of gr owi ng
genet i cal l y modi f i ed cr ops . The nameddef endant s and ot her s wer e al l member s
of a l oose associ at i onof ci t i zens concer ned by t he al l eged t hr eat t hat genet i cal l y
modi f i ed cr ops pose t o t he envi r onment . They had commenced a ver y publ i c
campai gn i n whi ch t hey woul d r ai d f ar mer s pl ot s and pul l out of t he gr ound a
t oken number of genet i cal l y modi f i ed pl ant s. The pl ai nt i f f br ought an act i on f or
an i nt er l ocut or y i nj unct i on based on t r espass nami ng t he def endant s i n a
r epr esent at i ve capaci t y of al l member s of Genet i X Snowbal l ( GXS) , t he
umbr el l a or gani zat i on of t hose opposed t o genet i cal l y modi f i ed cr ops . The
Cour t of Appeal af f i r med t hat a r epr esent at i ve act i on was appr opr i at e i n t hi s
case . The i nj unct i on was a cent r al f eat ur e of t he pl ai nt i f f ' s act i on and t he
member shi p of GXS was uni t ed i n i t s bel i ef t hat upr oot i ng genet i cal l y modi f i ed
cr ops was cent r al t o br i ng pr essur e t o bear on bot h t he pl ai nt i f f and t he
l egi sl at ur e whi ch had l i censed t he exper i ment al pl ot s . I t was t hat par t i cul ar
act i vi t y t hat t he def endant s hadi n common and f or whi char epr esent at i ve act i on
was appr opr i at e. 115
Two i nt er est i ng f eat ur es of t hi s case ar e f i r st , t hat t he def endant s ar gued t hat
a r epr esent at i ve act i on was not necessar y si nce ot her non- par t i es woul d be bound
t o obey t he i nj unct i on or der under t he Spycat cher pr i nci pl e . St uar t - Smi t h L. J. ,
speci f i cal l y r ej ect ed t hi s submi ssi on on t he basi s t hat whi l e t he Spycat cher
pr i nci pl e may val i dl y cat ch t hose who act edi n concer t wi t h t he nameddef endant s,
i t woul d not cat ch ot her def endant s who had act ed i ndependent l y of t he named
def endant s ; mer e knowl edge of t he i nj unct i on bei ng i nsuf f i ci ent t o f ound l i abi l i t y.
The second f eat ur e i s t he abi l i t y of t he def endant s t o r ai se ar gument s as t o t he
appr opr i at eness of t hei nj unct i ve or der and whet her a t r espass was commi t t ed . The

114
[ 2000] Env . L. R. 313 ( C. A. ) .
115 I bi d. at 331- 32 . See al so Mi chael s ( Fur r i er s) Lt d v. Askew&ot her s ( Unr epor t ed,
June 23, 1983) ( C. A. ) andnot ed i n ( 1983) , 127 Sol . J. 597, r epr esent at i ve def endant act i on
f or an i nt er l ocut or y i nj unct i on based on t r espass agai nst def endant s who wer e member s of
Ani mal Ai d, and who wer e opposed t o t he use of ani mal f ur s . .
240 LA REVUE DU BARREAU CANADI EN [ Vol . 81

def endant s ar gued a def ence of necessi t y and j ust i f i cat i on i n commi t t i ng t he
t r espass i n t hat t he genet i cal l y modi f i ed cr ops posed a r i sk t o human heal t h and
publ i c saf et y . Ul t i mat el y, t he cour t di d not bel i eve t hat t he def endant s had
br ought t hemsel ves wi t hi n t he l i mi t ed ambi t of such a def ence and t hus t he
def endant s wer e depr i ved t he oppor t uni t y of havi ng a f ul l scal e t r i al concer ni ng
t he publ i c saf et y of genet i cal l y modi f i ed cr ops . Never t hel ess, t he def endant s di d
have an oppor t uni t y t o expl ai n t hei r act i ons and t he r easons f or why t hey had
act ed i n t he way t hey had . Thi s i s i n cont r ast t o t he MacMi l l an Bl oedel
cont emnor s .
I n t wo ot her cases, deal i ng wi t h Ant on Pi l l er i nj unct i ons, cour t s i n Engl and and
Aust r al i ahaveal l owedt hepl ai nt i f f t oseeki nt er l ocut or yr el i ef agai nst ar epr esent at i ve
def endant , and t her eby execut e t he or der agai nst ot her def endant s whose i dent i t y
at t he t i me of r equest i ng t he Ant on Pi l l er or der ar e unknown t o t he pl ai nt i f f . I n
. M
E . I. Recor ds Lt d. v . Kudhai l 116 t he pl ai nt i f f successf ul l y gai ned an i nt er l ocut or y
i nj unct i on agai nst t he named def endant and ` al l ot her per sons engaged i n t he t r ade
of sel l i ng t apes bear i ng t he t r ade- name " Oak r ecor ds" . Thi s or der was gr ant ed on
t he basi s t hat t he named def endant was a r epr esent at i ve of t he cl ass of copyr i ght and
t r ade- mar k i nf r i nger s. The cour t sawi n t he. i ndi vi dual s who oper at ed t hr oughout
London suf f i ci ent c ommon i nt er est and f ound by i nf er ence t hat t hey wer e l i nked
i n some secr et or gani zat i on f or t he di st r i but i on of pi r at ed mat er i al . I n Tony Bl ai n
Pt y. Lt d. v . Jaf ni sonI 17 t he Aust r al i an Feder al Cour t cl osel y f ol l owed Kudhai l . The
pl ai nt i f f successf ul l y sought an or der agai nst named def endant s as r epr esent at i ves
of al l t hose who wer e engaged i n t he sal e of pi r at ed copyr i ght mat er i al out si de speci f i ed
concer t venues wher e Paul McCar t ney andMet al l i cawer e schedul ed t oper f or m. 118

VI I I . John and Jane Doe Or der s

The use of t he f i ct i t i ous John and Jane Doe appel l at i on, and ot her var i at i ons,
has been a par t of our c ommon l aw f or a consi der abl e per i od of t i me . 119

116 [ 19851 F. S. R. 36 ( C. A. ) . Thi s was not a t r ue Ant on Pi l l er or der i n t hat t he i nj unct i on

di d not aut hor i ze t he sear ch and sei zur e of i nf r i ngi ng mat er i al but r equi r ed t he def endant s
t o r ef r ai n f r omdeal i ng i n i nf r i ngi ng mat er i al . Never t hel ess, t he pi r at ed goods wer e sei zed
pur suant t o s . 18 of t he UK Copyr i ght Act ( U. K. ) 1956, 1956, 4 & 5 El i z. 2, c . 74, whi ch deems t he
r i ght of owner shi p of pi r at ed mat er i al t o t he copyr i ght hol der . The or der has become known
as a ` Door st ep Pi l l er ' , and see, D. Bar r on, " Rovi ng Ant on Pi l l er Or der s : Yet t o be Bor n,
Dead or Al i ve?" ( 1996) 18 E. I . P. R. 183, and P. Pr escot t , " EMI Recor ds Lt d. v . Kudhai l :
Cl ass I nj unct i ons" ( 1986) 8 E. I . P. R. 58 .
117
( 1993) , 41 F. C. R. 414 ( F. C. T. D. ) . Thi s was a t r ue Ant on Pi l l er or der and aut hor i zed
bot h sear ch and sei zur e .
I IsA
si mi l ar case i n New Zeal and i nvol vi ng t he same pl ai nt i f f was ar gued i n Tony
Bl ai n Pt y. Lt d. v . Spl ai n, supr a not e 98 . The case i s not a r epr esent at i ve def endant act i on,
al t hough, i t i s cl ear l y ai med at unknown per sons who i nf r i nge t he pl ai nt i f f ' s copyr i ght . The
f act t hat i t appear s t o be an or der made agai nst t he wor l d at l ar ge was sever el y condemned
by Wi nneke P. i n Mar i t i me Uni on v . Pat r i ck St evedor es Oper at i ons, supr a not e 67 at 163 .
119 S
ee A. W. B. Si mpson, AHi st or y of Land Law, 2nd ed. ( Oxf or d : Cl ar endon Pr ess,
1986) at 147- 49 .
2002] I nj unct i ons - The Abi l i t y t o Bi nd Non- Par t i es 24 1

Today i t i s used i n r espect t o t hr ee ar eas . One ar ea i s t o mai nt ai n a par t y' s

secur i t y and conf i dent i al i t y . 120 A second ar ea i s wher e t he pl ai nt i f f does
not know t he i dent i t y of t he def endant at t he t i me of l aunchi ng t he sui t .
Once t he pr oceedi ngs have been ser ved and t he i dent i t y of t he def endant
known, t he pl ai nt i f f seeks t o amend t he pl eadi ngs by addi ng t he def endant ' s
name . The pl ai nt i f f may be f or ced t o commence i t s sui t i n t hi s f ashi on t o
avoi d mi ssi ng l i mi t at i on per i ods or because t he def endant has act ed i n a
nef ar i ous way so as t o di sgui se hi s or her i dent i t y . 121 The t hi r d ar ea i s
wher e t he pl ai nt i f f commences i t s act i on i n advance of knowi ng who may
be vi ol at i ng i t s r i ght s or even wher e t hat vi ol at i on wi l l t ake pl ace. I t i s under
t hi s gui se t hat t he Feder al Cour t of Canada has devel oped a speci al i zed
f or mof Ant on Pi l l er or der known as a ` Rol l i ng Ant on Pi l l er Or der ' . 122 The
common f eat ur e of t hese or der s i s t hat t he pl ai nt i f f , i n expar t ei nt er l ocut or y
pr oceedi ngs, i s abl e t o demonst r at e t o t he cour t t hat i t s i nt el l ect ual pr oper t i es
ar e bei ng vi ol at ed by numer ous t r ansi ent and evasi ve def endant s over a
l ar ge geogr aphi cal ar ea and t hat ot her met hods of enf or cement have pr oved
i nef f ect i ve . I t i s t he f act t hat t he def endant s ar e unknown at t he t i me of
seeki ng t he i nt er l ocut or y r el i ef whi ch suggest s t hat a John and Jane Doe
or der i s si mi l ar t o maki ng an or der agai nst t he wor l d at l ar ge. I suggest t hat
t her e ar e i mpor t ant di f f er ences bet ween a John and Jane Doe or der and an
or der whi ch pur por t s t o bi nd t he wor l d at . l ar ge .
Wher e John and Jane Doe i s sued t he act i on i s i ni t i al l y br ought agai nst
a f i ct i onal par t y . Si nce t he l aw does not al l ow f i ct i t i ous sui t s t he r ai son
d' êt r e of t he use of t he t er mi s t hat a known def endant wi l l be added at some
t i me so t hat t he act i on can pr oceed . Wher e t he pl ai nt i f f has asked f or
i nt er l ocut or y r el i ef on an ex par t e basi s, t her e i s i n t he appr opr i at e t est s f or
consi der i ng t he or der a r eal i zat i on t hat t he cour t i s maki ng a det er mi nat i on
i n somet hi ng l ess t han i deal condi t i ons . I n par t i cul ar , t her e has been no
adver sar i al t est of t he pl ai nt i f f ' s cl ai mt hat a subst ant i ve r i ght exi st s, or of
t he evi dence demonst r at i ng vi ol at i on of t he same . Ther e i s an appr eci at i on
t hat bef or e pr oceedi ng t o j udgment t he pl ai nt i f f wi l l have t o pr ove i t s case
andt hat a def endant , once known, wi l l have an oppor t uni t y t o chal l enge t he
pl ai nt i f f ' s pr oof i f so i ncl i ned . 13y and l ar ge t he pr act i ce of t he Feder al
Cour t i n gr ant i ng r ol l i ng Ant on Pi l l er or der s r espect s t hese pr i nci pl es .
Fi r st , t he pl ai nt i f f i s r equi r ed t o demonst r at e t he need f or pr oceedi ng on t he
basi s of a John and Jane Doe or der . 123 Second, once t he or der i s ser ved, t he

120See f or exampl e, John Doe v . CBC, [ 199412 W . W.R. 679 ( B. C. C. A. ) .

121
See f or exampl e, Jackson v . Bubel a and Doe, [ 1972] 5 W . W. R. 80 ( B. C. C. A. ) .
122See f or exampl e Fi l a Canada I nc. v . Doe, [ 1996] 3 F. C. 493 ( T. D. ) , Ni ke Canada
Lt d. v. Jane Doe ( 1999) , 2 C. P. R. ( 4~h) 501 ( F. C. T. D. ) , and Cl ub Monaco I nc. v. Woody
Wor l d Di scount s ( 1999) , 2 C. P. R. ( 4t h) 436 ( F. C. I . D. ) .
123
Cl ub Monaco I nc. v . Woody Wor l d Di scount s, i bi d. , Ni ke Canada Lt d. v . Jane Doe,
i bi d. , and Col umbi a Pi ct ur es I ndust r y Lt d. v. John and Jane Doe T- 1270- 00 ( Oct ober 2,
2000) ( F. C. T. D. ) .
242 THECANADI AN BARREVI EW [ Vol . 81

pl ai nt i f f i s r equi r ed t o add t he def endant ' s name t o t he cause of act i on and

t o r epor t on t he ser vi ce of t he or der i n a r evi ew mot i on . 124 At t hi s t i me t he
def endant has an oppor t uni t y t o cont est t he gr ant of t he i nt er l ocut or y
i nj unct i on . I f t he def endant cont i nues t o vi ol at e t he i nt er l ocut or y i nj unct i on
t hen t he pl ai nt i f f may pr oceed wi t h a show cause hear i ng f or cont empt of
cour t , 125 wher e t he def endant can agai n chal l enge t he basi s of t he
i nj unct i on . 126
The caut i ous t r eat ment of John and Jane Doe def endant s out l i ned
above i s al so r ef l ect ed i n t he Feder al Cour t of Appeal ' s j udgment i n
Mont r es Rol ex v . Bal shi n . 127 The pl ai nt i f f was t he hol der of r egi st er ed
t r ade- mar ks f or Rol ex and Cr own wat ches . The def endant s wer e named
par t i es who had been sel l i ng i mi t at i on " knock- of f s" of t he pl ai nt i f f ' s
pr oduct s f r omst r eet st al l s . The pl ai nt i f f had been successf ul i n obt ai ni ng
a number of i nt er l ocut or y Ant on Pi l l er or der s . I n subsequent i nt er l ocut or y
pr oceedi ngs t he pl ai nt i f f st ar t ed t o l ay t he gr ound wor k t o move f or an al l
encompassi ng f i nal or der so as t o r est r i ct t he act i vi t i es of bot h k nown as
wel l as unknown def endant s . I n par t i cul ar , t he pl ai nt i f f had sought t o make
one of t he named def endant s a r epr esent at i ve of a cl ass . Thi s had been
r ej ect ed by t he cour t on t he basi s t hat t her e was no assur ance t hat t he
def endant s woul d mount a vi gor ous def ence f or t he cl ass . 128 As i t t r anspi r ed
t he named def endant act ual l y consent ed t o j udgment bei ng ent er ed agai nst
i t at a l at er st age i n t he l i t i gat i on . However , t he pl ai nt i f f cont i nued t o seek
a f i nal i nj unct i on i n t he name of John and Jane Doe and per sons unknown.
The t r i al j udge had made such an or der but had l i mi t ed i t t o unnamed
def endant s who wer e engaged i n sal es of count er f ei t pr oduct s on or bef or e
t he dat e of commencement of t he t r i al . The appl i cant appeal ed t hi s or der ,
cl ai mi ng i t was vague and t hat i t shoul d be amended t o i ncl ude any
unnamed def endant who under t ook i l l i ci t t r ade even af t er t he dat e of t r i al .

124 Adobe Syst ems I nc. v . KLJ Comput er Sol ut i ons I nc . , [ 199913 F. C. 621( F. C. T. D. )
at 629 .
125 Long Shong Pi ct ur es ( HK. ) Lt d. v . NTCEnt er t ai nment Lt d. ( 2000) , 6 C. P. R. ( 4 )
509 ( F. C. T. D. ) . Hugo Boss A. G. v . John Doe ( 2000) , 5 C. P. R. ( 41 " ) 432 ( F. C. T. D. ) i s one
case i n whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f pr oceeded t o a show cause hear i ng f or cont empt by a non- named
par t y on t he basi s t hat t hose who ai d and abet ot her s i n br eachi ng an i nt er l ocut or y i nj unct i on
ar e l i abl e f or cont empt . The non- named par t y was t he owner of a mar ket wher e st al l hol der s
woul d r ent space t o conduct t hei r oper at i ons . The evi dence demonst r at ed t hat t he non-
named par t y had been war ned r epeat edl y of t he vi ol at i on of t he st al l hol der s and t hat he had
f aci l i t at ed t he ongoi ng i nf r i ngement s .
126 Even of t he def endant can est abl i sh t hat t he i nj unct i on shoul d not have been
gr ant ed t he def endant may st i l l be l i abl e f or cont empt on t he basi s t hat even an unj ust i f i ed
i nj unct i on must be obeyed. However , i n t hese ci r cumst ances t he cour t s have i ndi cat ed t hat
t he i nval i di t y of t he i nj unct i on wi l l have a r eal bear i ng on t he penal t y i mposed. See Coca-
Col a Lt d. v . Par dhan ( 2000) , 5 C. P. R. ( 0) 333 ( F. C. T. D. ) at 339 .
127 Supr a not e 3 .
128 Mont r es Rol ex v. Bal shi n, [ 1990] 3 F. C. 253 ( T. D. ) at 364.
20021 I nj unct i ons - The Abi l i t y t o Bi nd Non- Par t i es 243

I n t hi s sense t he appel l ant was seeki ng a per manent or der agai nst al l f ut ur e
unnamed def endant s .
Rober t son J . A. , f or t he cour t , f i r st r evi ewed t he ear l i er case l aw
di scussed above t hat concl uded t hat onl y a par t y t o a sui t i s bound by an
or der . Rober t son J. A. t hen acknowl edged l i mi t ed except i ons t o t hi s pr i nci pl e
concer ni ng cor por at i ons as named def endant s and t hei r l i abi l i t y f or t he
act i ons of cor por at e of f i cer s, t r ade uni ons and t he l i abi l i t y of uni on
member s, and f or ot her s who ar e gui l t y of ai di ng and abet t i ng as agent s and
ser vant s of anamed def endant . Rober t son J . A. t hen t ur ned t o t he appl i cant ' s
ar gument t hat t he f i nal or der coul d be addr essed t o John and Jane Doe . He
f i r st di st i ngui shed bet ween t wo gr oups of unnamed def endant s : one bei ng
t hose who had engaged i n i l l i ci t sal es pr i or t o j udgment bei ng obt ai ned but
whose i dent i t y was unknown - t hese he t er med ` unknown def endant s' ,
and, t wo, t hose who may i n t he f ut ur e vi ol at e t he i nj unct i on - t hese he
t er med ` pot ent i al def endant s' .
Wi t h r espect t o unknown def endant s, Rober t son J . A. al l owed t he t r i al
j udge' s or der t o st and. The act i on of an i t i ner ant t r ader i n i l l i ci t goods was
aki n t o one who ai ded and abet t ed i n i nf r i ngi ng t he appl i cant ' s l egi t i mat e
i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y r i ght s . They wer e ` ar t f ul dodger s' who used t he f act
t hat t he pl ai nt i f f coul d not i dent i f y t hempr i or t o br i ng t he or der as a means
t o avoi d bei ng subj ect t o i t . However , bef or e bei ng subj ect t o t he or der
Rober t son J. A. i nsi st ed t hat t he unknown def endant " be ser ved wi t h a copy
of t he j udgment and gi ven an oppor t uni t y t o chal l enge t he appl i cabi l i t y of
t he i nj unct i on as i t i mpact s upon t hem. " 129 I n t hi s way t he unknown
def endant was assur ed of r ecei vi ng not i ce and bei ng gi ven an oppor t uni t y
t o chal l enge t he or der bef or e bei ng f ound gui l t y f or cont empt i n f ai l i ng t o
obey t he or der . The or der was not ext ended wi t h r espect t o t he ` pot ent i al
def endant s' . The j ust i f i cat i on f or i ncl udi ng unknown def endant s was t o
meet ' t he speci f i c concer n t hat t he pl ai nt i f f coul d not i dent i f y t hemf or t he
pur pose of ser vi ce pr i or t o t r i al . Ext endi ng an or der t o cover pot ent i al
def endant s cannot be r at i onal l y connect ed t o gi vi ng t he pot ent i al def endant
an oppor t uni t y t o be hear d pr i or t o a det er mi nat i on of t he pl ai nt i f f ' s r i ght s,
because pot ent i al def endant s may onl y commence i nf r i ngi ng t hose r i ght s
af t er t he mer i t s of t he pl ai nt i f f ' s case have been hear d. Thus, t he r at i onal e
appl i cabl e t o unknown def endant s coul d not be equal l y ext ended . 13 o

129 Supr a not e 3 at 254.

13 ol bi d. at 256. The pl ai nt i f f al so sought t o ar gue t hat because t he Tr ade- mar ks Act ,
R. S. C. , 1985, c . T- 13 gave t he cour t a power t o make an or der st oppi ng t he i mpor t at i on of
i nf r i ngi ng goods at t he bor der , and t hat such or der i s not di r ect ed at speci f i c def endant s,
t hen t he cour t coul d gi ve a f i nal or der enj oi ni ng t he sal e of goods once l anded whi chi s not
di r ect ed agai nst speci f i c def endant s . The cour t r ej ect ed t hi s ar gument not i ng t hat t he
l egi sl at i on speci f i cal l y mandat ed t he i mpor t at i on or der . Nor di d t he i mpor t at i on or der
i ni t i at e cont empt pr oceedi ngs f or vi ol at i on but i n f act gave a r i ght t o t hei mpor t er t o obj ect
t o t he sei zur e. The cour t , f ur t her added t hat a successf ul appl i cant coul d use mandamus
agai nst t he cust oms depar t ment t o ensur e t he or der ' s enf or cement . I bi d. at 256- 60.
244 LA REVUE DU BARREAUCANADI EN [ VOI . 81

However , t he mai n obj ect i on agai nst an or der ai med at pot ent i al def endant s
was t he vi ol at i on of due pr ocess concer ns and t hat t he cont empt of cour t
pr ocess shoul d not become an expedi ent means of achi evi ng j udgment
enf or cement .
Thus, i n Mont r es Rol ex v. Bal shi n t he pl ai nt i f f was abl e t o keep John and
Jane Doe i n t he st yl e of cause and t o hol d t he i nj unct i on bi ndi ng on t hose who
wer e vi ol at i ng t he pl ai nt i f f ' s i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y at t he t i me t he l i t i gat i on
commenced up t o t he dat e of t r i al . At t r i al t he pl ai nt i f f pr oved i t s subst ant i ve
r i ght s t o t he i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y r i ght s and coul d enf or ce t he i nj unct i on on
unknown def endant s af t er gi vi ng not i ce andaf f or di ng t he nowknowndef endant
an oppor t uni t y t o chal l enge t he or der i f so i ncl i ned . Onl y t hen coul d t he
def endant be char ged wi t h cont empt .
I n MacMi l l an Bl oedel McLachl i n J . di d not r ul e on t he appr opr i at eness of
t he John and Jane Doe nomencl at ur e i n t he st yl e of cause. Gi ven t he cour t ' s
deci si on on t he abi l i t y t o hol d non- par t i es i n cont empt of an i nj unct i on or der ,
McLachl i n J . t hought t hat t hi s nomencl at ur e was ' sur pl usage' , al t hough she
opi ned t hat no aut hor i t y had been gi ven t o suggest t hat t he use of ` John and Jane
Doe or Per sons Unknown' i nval i dat ed t he or der . 131
Ther e ar e i mpor t ant di f f er ences bet ween Mont r es Rol ex v . Bal shi n and
MacMi l l an Bl oedel i n r espect t o t he enf or cement of i nj unct i ons agai nst non-
par t i es . I n t he f or mer , t he non- par t y i s made a par t y t o t he act i on t hr ough t he
r ubr i c of an unknown def endant . I n t he l at t er , t he non- par t y i s never made a
par t y t o t he l i t i gat i on but pr oceeds st r ai ght t o cont empt pr oceedi ng . By maki ng
t he non- par t y i n ef f ect a par t y t o t he pr oceedi ngs i mpor t ant consequences
f ol l ow. One, t he non- par t y i s gi ven a r i ght t o be hear d on t he subst ant i ve mer i t s
of whet her t he pl ai nt i f f shoul d have been gr ant ed t he i nj unct i on i n t he f i r st
pl ace, and i f gr ant ed, whet her i t appl i ed t o t henon- par t y speci f i cal l y . The non-
par t y has t he oppor t uni t y t o pl ead any speci f i c def ences t o t he subst ant i ve
act i on whi ch may be pecul i ar t o hi mor her r at her t han have t hese det er mi ned
as i r r el evant f or t he pur poses of cont empt pr oceedi ngs . Two, t he use of John
and Jane Doe i s consi st ent wi t h est abl i shed r ul es of ci vi l pr ocedur e and does
not engage any speci al at t ent i on t o t he cour t ' s i nher ent j ur i sdi ct i on, as i n t he
case of act i ons br ought f or cont empt t o i mpede or i nt er f er e wi t h t he
admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce . Thr ee, t her e i s a gr eat er l i kel i hood t hat i n t he event
t hat cont empt char ges ar e br ought f or vi ol at i ng t hecour t ' s i nj unct i on or der , t he
cont empt wi l l be kept as one of ci vi l r at her t han cr i mi nal cont empt . The
pl ai nt i f f wi l l be seeki ng compl i ance by a now named par t y r at her t han
pr osecut i ng a cont emnor f or i nt er f er i ng or i mpedi ng t he admi ni st r at i on of
j ust i ce. I n t hi s sense t her e i s not t he same open publ i c def i ance of a cour t or der .
Lower i ng t hepossi bi l i t y of cr i mi nal cont empt char ges al so l ower s t hel i kel i hood
t hat t he at t or ney gener al wi l l be par t y t o t he pr oceedi ngs . I t al so has t he benef i t
t hat t he cour t i s not seen as maki ng pr eci pi t ous use of i t s cont empt power s t o

131
Supr a not e 2 at 1069 .
20021 I nj unct i ons - The Abi l i t y t o Bi nd Non- Par t i es 245

pr eser ve i t s own di gni t y . Four , t he non- par t y wi l l have access t o t he

pl ai nt i f f ' s damages under t aki ng wher e he or she can showt hat t he i nj unct i on
shoul d not have been enf or ced agai nst hi mor her . Because t her e i s now an
act i on, t he non- par t y may seek enf or cement of t he under t aki ng wher e i t has
suf f er ed l oss t o ei t her i t s subst ant i ve or pr ocedur al r i ght s . Of cour se, a non-
par t y who i s added as anamed def endant t o an act i on wi l l become l i abl e f or
any damages whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f i s abl e t o pr ove . However , t hi s i s a r i sk
al ways bor ne by a non- par t y and i t i s st i l l dependent upon t he pl ai nt i f f
pr ovi ng t hat t he now named def endant caused t he pl ai nt i f f ' s act ual l osses .
The t ype of publ i c i nt er est dynami c whi ch l ed MacMi l l an Bl oedel t o dr op
i t s ci vi l act i on agai nst pr ot est er s wi l l not change because i t has been
r equi r ed t o add t he non- par t i es as def endant s as i s bei ng suggest ed her e .
Wi t h r espect t o cost s, a non- par t y i n cont empt pr oceedi ngs has al ways been
l i abl e f or cost s at a sol i ci t or - cl i ent l evel . 132 Not hi ng changes i n t hi s r espect
by addi ng t he non- par t y t o t he act i on . Apar t f r omt he pr ocedur al saf eguar ds
af f or ded a non- par t y who i s added t o t he pr oceedi ngs t hr ough t he use of t he
John and Jane Doe appel l at i on, t her e i s t he added, advant age t hat t he
pl ai nt i f f must pr ove a need f or such an or der pr i or t o i t s gr ant i ng . Thi s i s
nor mal l y done by t he pl ai nt i f f demonst r at i ng t hat t he abuse of r i ght s i s so
wi de- spr ead t hat i t i s unabl e t o i dent i f y def endant s i n advance . The Feder al
cour t has i nsi st ed t hat t he pl ai nt i f f pr ove how convent i onal ways of
pr oceedi ng have f ai l ed bef or e r esor t i ng t o a John and Jane Doe or der . 133
Thi s i s a cl ose appr oxi mat i on t o Bal combe L. J . ' s suggest i on t hat t he
pl ai nt i f f be r equi r ed t o expl i ci t l y r equest an or der t hat i s good agai nst al l t he
wor l d and t o ar gue i t s mer i t s at t hat t i me . 134 I t may al so engage t he cour t
i n debat e about ot her possi bl e avenues open t o t he pl ai nt i f f t o gai n r edr ess
of i t s gr i evances bef or e seeki ng. equi t abl e r el i ef . Thi s may i ncl ude an act i on
of mandamus agai nst t he At t or ney Gener al and/ or pol i ce .

I X. Concl usi on

I n Vi déot r on Lt ée v. I ndust r i es Mi cr ol ec Pr odui t s El ect r oni ques I nc. 135 t he

Supr eme Cour t of Canada caut i oned agai nst usi ng t hecont empt of cour t power
as j ust anot her summar y and si mpl e enf or cement mechani smof j udgment s .
The cont empt power of cour t s i s of anci ent or i gi n and l ar gel y one t hat ent r ust s
cour t s wi t h consi der abl e coer ci ve and cor r ect i ve aut hor i t y . Thej ur i sdi ct i on t o
appl y r emai ns wi t hi n t he cour t s' i nher ent j ur i sdi ct i on t o exer ci se and i s a power
t hat al l have suggest ed shoul d be used spar i ngl y . Whi l e any non- obser vance of

132
See Coca- Col a Lt d. v. Par dhan, supr a not e 126, and Pf i zer Canada I nc. v. Apot ex
I nc. ( 1998) , 86 C. P. R. ( 3d) 33 ( F. C. T. D. ) at 35 .
Cl ub Monaco I nc. v. Woody Wor l d Di scount s, supr a not e 121 at 440.
133

134A. -
G. v . Newspaper Publ i shi ng Pl c. , supr a not e 27 at 387- 90 .
135
[ 199212 S. C. R. 1065 .
246 THE CANADI AN BARREVI EW [ Vol . 81

a cour t or der shoul d not be condoned, we shoul d not aut omat i cal l y assume t hat
an i ndi vi dual who f ai l s t o obey a cour t i nj unct i on or der i s l aunchi ng an open
at t ack on t he i nt egr i t y of t he j ust i ce syst em. Af t er al l , a j udgment debt or i s
equal l y di sobeyi ng a cour t or der , yet we do not r egar d t hat i ndi vi dual as openl y
assai l i ng t he r ul e of l aw. Af undament al canon of our l awi s t he r i ght t o be hear d.
I t behoves cour t s t o r econci l e t hat r i ght wi t h met hods adopt ed t o enf or ce
i nj unct i ons . I have suggest ed her e t hat wher e at al l possi bl e ci vi l l i t i gant s
shoul d be r equi r ed t o conf or m t o t he usual ci vi l l i t i gat i on pr ocedur es and t o
br i ng t hei r act i on agai nst a known def endant . When t he i nj unct i on i s ai med at
unknown per sons, t he appl i cant shoul d be r equi r ed t o add t he unknown per son,
once i dent i f i ed, t o t he pl eadi ngs so as t o accor d t hat per son wi t h t he usual r i ght s
of a def endant i n bei ng abl e t o chal l enge t he gr ant i ng of t he or der . I f i t i s t he
i nt ent i on of t he appl i cant t o r equest , and t he cour t t o gr ant , an i nj unct i on agai nst
al l t he wor l d, t hen cour t s shoul d devel op cr i t er i a speci f i cal l y ai med at addr essi ng
how unknown per sons ar e t o have t hei r r i ght s saf eguar ded and why ot her
enf or cement mechani sms have f ai l ed t he appl i cant . An i nt er i m measur e may
be t he appoi nt ment by t he cour t of an ami cus cur i ae t o r epr esent t he unknown
per sons . 136

136 Such a suggest i on was made by Ander son 7 . i n t he NewZeal and case of Tony Bl ai n
Pt y. Lt d. v. Spl ai n, supr a not e 9S.