MR.DIMNIK:

And then he goes on to conclude that in his opinion, in that circumstance, that sections 734.5 and 734.6 are not appropriate.

Also in the Saskatchewan Provincial Court decision of Madraga (phonetic), paragraph 12, the provincial court judge there deals with appropriateness and in that paragraph the judge states:

"Defense counsel argues that there are other appropriate civil remedies available to the Crown, such as filing a writ of execution, registration of personal property writs, garnishee proceedings, examination in aid of execution, etcetera.  In my view, the Crown is not obliged to show that ever possible legal remedy has been exhausted.  That is why the word appropriate is used rather than available or possible.  Not appropriate in the circumstances describes a situation where, as here, there is little or no hope of successful recover of fines owing to the mechanisms provided."

In that particular case, sir, what the court was looking at was an individual who, in light of a number of fines, basically managed to divest himself of property and declare bankruptcy so as to take property away from the realm of what otherwise would be within the realm of civil procedure.

In this particular case, sir, certainly these individuals haven't done that, but I would submit that, again, looking at what their objective is, and looking at their lack of reasonable excuse, I think this court is free to draw the conclusion that regardless of what action is taken, short of committal, that these individuals will do everything they can to further thwart the collection process, and further thwart the collection of these fines.

THE COURT:

Maybe they have learned their lesson about driving off with their tractors, combines and trucks, Mr. Dimnik.  We do not know that because you have not tried to seize property in order to satisfy this debt.  You are simply saying because of the nature of these individuals and their political motivation, that they might.

MR. DIMNIK:

I'm also saying, sir, that to be successful in this provision, I don't necessarily have to show that it's appropriate, but rather show that they have no lawful reasonable excuse for failing to pay.

THE COURT:

Gentlemen, I have got a problem, and I think you have gleaned that from what I have said, with what is your apparent justification for not paying this fine, and you put me in a terrible position.  Now, if you can come up with some solution that will stop you going through that door and spending 25 days as the guest of Her Majesty, I am open to suggestions, and that means in two cases, I gather, a thousand dollars, and in one case, $3,000, is that the sum, Mr. Dimnik?

MR. DIMNIK:

That's correct, sir, and in Mr. Hanger's situation, default time would be 75 days, sir.

THE COURT:

Even worse.  I am not trying to put you fellows into the vice grips here, but we need some money, or somebody is going to be doing some time, or the other option is the government is going to come out and start seizing property to satisfy its judgment, and who knows what the property will sell for.  I do not want to compound the difficulties you face. Are you prepared to pay these fines, because you leave me with no option?

THE RESPONDENT NESS:

Your Honour, would you specifically spell out the options that you might give us?

THE COURT:

Well, if you were given a reasonable time, if I was to extend, based on perhaps some sense that you did not fully understand what the application was that Mr. Dimnik was bringing, or it was not in a timely fashion, if you were to be given 30 days to pay these fines, would you be able to do that, or if I was to stay the execution of a warrant of committal for 30 days, Mr. Dimnik, would that gnaw at Her Majesty's ego too much?

MR. DIMNIK:

No, sir.

THE COURT:

Gentlemen?

THE RESPONDENT NESS:

Your Honour, would it be asking too much to have the thing put off until fall until October until harvest is done?

THE COURT:

Would that be agreeable to all parties?

THE RESPONDENT NESS:

Then we will deal with it, sir, right after harvest, if there is a harvest.

THE COURT:

You keep shooting the arrows, Mr. Ness.

THE RESPONDENT NESS:

I'm sorry, sir.

THE COURT:

Mr. Dimnik, could you live with that?

MR. DIMNIK:

Sir, if it was your inclination to order warrants of committal to issue in the event that payment isn't made by a specific date in the fall.

THE COURT:

I will direct that they be held until a date at the end of October

MR. DIMNIK:

My concern, sir, is that if we are going to be involved in a further - -

THE COURT:

No, no, this will be simply the police going out and executing.

MR. DIMNIK:

All right, then I can live with that, sir, certainly.

THE COURT:

All right, Mr. Ness, let me say this, the application of the Crown here is with respect to unpaid fines in relation to a number of convictions.  Those fines have not been paid, and the Crown has made application for a warrant of committal to be issued as against those individuals who have not paid the fine.  The Crown argues that there is no reasonable excuse for the non-payment of those fines, and the excuse offered on behalf o fall the respondents is essentially that their freedom to demonstrate has been violated or frustrated by the federal authorities, by means of their arrest and being charged with these offences, and further, that they essentially have been maliciously prosecuted.  Additionally, they argue that another individual who is an aboriginal person, was not treated the same in terms of disposition, and, in fact, in that case, was given some form of discharge.  They argue that there is an inequity between them and another accused.

I do not find any of those arguments to be a reasonable excuse.  They were, in essence, nothing more than a restatement of the protest which all of these individuals were engaged in, however, the notice served by the Crown in this case was given a short while ago, and while I am of the view that there is no reasonable excuse for the non-payment of these fines, I think in view of the economic circumstances which appear to be affecting all of the individuals, that it would be appropriate to allow them some period of time to make good on these fines before the Crown executes its warrant of committal.  I am satisfied that the grounds for a warrant of committal have been made out.  I am satisfied that there is no reasonable excuse for failing to pay these fines, but in issuing the warrant of committal, which I do now, I would direct that it be held and not executed until the 31st day of October, 2002.

THE RESPONDENT NESS:

Thank you, sir.

THE COURT:

Gentlemen, get the money in, because there will be no further applications like this.  What will happen on October the 31st, I am sure, as Good made little green applies, that if these fines are not paid, somebody in authority will be coming to visit you and take you away from your homes and your children so that you can spend some time in a gaol.  I do not want that to happen, you do not want that to happen, it will not help your cause particularly, and it would be best if we can resolve this is another fashion.

So there will be a warrant of committal, I direct that it be held and not executed before October the 31st of this year.  All right, gentlemen, thank you.  Anything further, Mr. Dimnik?

MR. DIMNIK:

Sir, just in regard to this matter, I'm just wondering whether there is anything that the respondents are required to sign, whether there's an acknowledgment of the issuance of the order or anything like that.

THE COURT:

I can't think of anything unless the clerk can.

MR. DIMNIK:

No, that's - - that's fine then, sir.

THE COURT:

I have simply stayed the execution of a validly issued warrant until that date.