Lawyers allege Lemay Forest protester is in contempt of court

Another twist in the battle over Lemay Forest as protesters blocked the entrance Wednesday. CTV’s Daniel Halmarson reports.

The lawyer for the owner of Lemay Forest argued the actions of one protester should be found in contempt of court.

Louise May is a part of the Coalition to Save Lemay Forest and was among the group who set up a blockade earlier this month to prevent tree cutting in the forest. On Thursday, she was in Manitoba’s Court of King’s Bench as lawyers argued whether or not she should be found in civil contempt of court.

On Jan. 6, Justice Sarah Innes ordered an injunction requiring protesters at Lemay Forest to allow crews access to the property. Kevin Toyne, the lawyer representing Tochal Development – the owner of Lemay Forest – alleged May breached that order several times and asked Innes to find her in contempt.

Toyne said May had stood in front of a bobcat trying to access the property and had parked her truck across the access point to Lemay Forest – impeding full access to the site.

“By parking the black truck on the city’s land in the manner that she did, Ms. May created an obstruction that you had ordered be removed,” he said.

Court heard May had repositioned the truck following the order to allow some equipment room to get by and removed the truck altogether on Jan. 16.

May’s lawyer, Scott Newman, argued she and others at the site had made good faith efforts to allow access to the forest.

Toyne also alleged May had trespassed in the forest. He pointed to a photo John Wintrup, a professional planner, had taken showing two people wearing hooded jackets.

Wintrup testified he believed one of the two people in the photo was May. He said he called out to them and they began to yell expletives at him before running away.

But this was called into question.

“The ultimate theory…is he just misidentified who he was speaking with,” Newman told the court, noting the photo was taken from more than 100 feet away.

May contested Wintrup’s testimony when asked under cross-examination.

“I’m going to suggest to you that it was you, in fact, who was trespassing on the property,” Toyne asked May.

“Well, you’re wrong,” she responded.

“Then who was it?” he asked.

“I don’t know and I wouldn’t say if I did,” she told him.

Toyne finally argued May had threatened or intimidated Wintrup by launching a private prosecution against him under The Cemeteries Act.

“Trying to get someone incarcerated and talking about it publicly, in my respectful submission, constitutes a threat,” Toyne said.

Newman argued the private prosecution was not meant to threaten or intimidate but rather to prevent tree-felling on the site of possible unmarked graves – actions he said May believed were going against the act.

Toyne asked the court to put May in jail for 10 days, impose a $25,000 fine, and compel her to stay the private prosecution.

While Newman argued the point of a civil contempt of court case is not to punish a person but to bring them into compliance. He said with the truck moved and May telling the court she is not planning to block the site again, that has been accomplished.

Justice Innes has reserved her decision in the case.