[The following is the text of Justice Cunningham's decision that Dick Nadeau was in contempt of court as cited by Justice Colin McKinnon at the Cornwall, Ontario sex abuse trial of Jacques Leduc]   

                                                  COURT FILE NO.: 01-01                                                  

                                                    Released: September 7, 2001

 ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

IN THE MATTER OF Contempt Proceedings Against

Richard Nadeau, Arising Out of Publications on the

Internet Related to the Trial of Jacques Leduc in

Cornwall, Ontario

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN                         )   Jeffrey R. Manishen, for the Crown

- and -

RICHARD NADEAU                                        )   H. Yegendorf, for the accused 

                                                                        HEARD: August 7, 2001

CUNNINGHAM J.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

[1]     Richard Nadeau appears before me having been cited for contempt by the Honourable Mr. Justice Colin McKinnon. Counsel were kind enough to provide me with an Agreed Statement of Facts as follows:

1.    On August 14, 2000, Richard Nadeau was registered as the administrative contact for a website called www.projecttruth2,com. Nadeau previously had involvement with a similar website, www.projectruth.com which had postings of statements of persons allegedly victimized by sexual abuse in Cornwall. Nadeau was contacted by D/Insp. Pat Hall of the Ontario Provincial Police on July 31, 2000 regarding the potential negative impact of such postings on forthcoming criminal trials

-2-

which formed part of an investigation known as Project Truth. www.projecttruth.com was shut down on August 2, 2000.

2. Filed with the Court on January 29, 2001 as Exhibits 7 and 8 are hard copies of articles posted on the aforementioned websites. Richard Nadeau maintained and posted the articles and comments on www.projecttruth2.com.

3.  On January 15, 2001, the trial of Her Majesty the Queen and Jacques Leduc commenced before the Honourable Mr. Justice McKinnon, scheduled to proceed with a jury. On January 16, on application by counsel, His Honour ordered a ban on publication on ^"any motion, any evidence called on any motion in the absence of the jury" including dissemination of information through the world wide web until the jury returned its verdict. Richard Nadeau was present in court when the Order was made.

Exhibit 5, Transcript of Proceedings, Vol. II, January 16, 2001.

4. During the course of proceedings on January 16, counsel for the accused made application for the Judge to order that the Crown consent to the defence request for re-election to be tried by Judge alone. The Crown opposed this application. At some time on Jauary 16, Nadeau posted an article on the website referring to the motion, the positions of the parties and a comment by the Judge. A reference on the website indicated that it had been visited on 71,448 prior occasions.

Exhibit 3, Compendium of projecttruth2 postings, tab 7. Exhibit 4, projecttruth2 excerpt.

5.  The posting was brought to the attention of the trial Judge by defence counsel who renewed his application for the accused to be permitted to re-elect. On the basis of the article, the Crown consented to the application. The Judge invited Nadeau to attend the court and he did so later that day. Nadeau apologized to the Court, indicating that he didn't understand or wasn't aware of the Order. Mr. Justice McKinnon indicated that although he had the power to hold Nadeau in contempt of court, he was not going to do so. He cautioned Nadeau to retain and consult with counsel regarding further dealings with the website to determine whether what he was writing was permitted. Nadeau assured the Judge that "Whatever your direction is, I'll follow it".

Exhibit 5, Transcript of Proceedings, Vol.III, January 17, 2001.

6.  On or about January 20, under the heading "Notes from the site to January 20^th, Nadeau posted an article entitled, "The Right to Know is the Bedrock of Our Democracy" on the website.

Exhibit 5, Compendium of postings, tab 2.

-3-

7. On January 22, Nadeau was present at the continuation of the trial of Jacques Leduc. Mr. Justice McKinnon distributed the article to counsel and received submissions. He then outlined passages in the article that were false and contemptuous and cited Nadeau for contempt on the basis that the website and article were damaging to the due administration of justice. He proposed to adjourn the matter to permit Nadeau to retain counsel. The Judge ordered that Nadeau not publish anything with respect to any of these trials on the website until he heard further. He went on to order that Nadeau not write anything with respect to this trial, the Crown, defence counsel and himself until he returned to court on January 29 at which time he would hear further submissions from Nadeau and his counsel.

Exhibit 5, Transcript of Proceedings, Vol.IV, January 22, 2001.

8. On January 25, 2001, Nadeau appeared before Mr. Justice McKinnon and was advised that his counsel and the Crown would set a date for the hearing of the contempt citation. He was also advised that the interim order that no further stories about Project Truth were to be put on the web site pending the hearing of the contempt citation. Nadeau indicated that he was proceeding with other matters on the web site that didn't relate to the Leduc trial.

Exhibit 5, Transcript of Proceedings, Vol. VII, January 25, 2001

9. Nadeau appeared with counsel on January 29, 2001. He was advised that he was required to show cause why he should not be found guilty of contempt committed outside court regarding articles which he authored and posted on his website which interfered with the course of justice, undermined the presumption of innocence and brought the administration of justice into disrepute. Counsel for Nadeau consented to the interim order that there be no further postings made to the website with respect to the Leduc trial. The Crown requested that information regarding outstanding criminal trials be removed from the site and Nadeau not publish further information in relation to other cases where there were outstanding criminal charges. The Judge made the Orders requested, including the Leduc case, pending further submissions on February 15.

Exhibit 5, Transcript of Proceedings, Vol.VIII, January 29, 2001.

10. As of January 31, 2001, the articles in question had not been removed. Following consultation between D/Insp. Hall and counsel for Nadeau, a list of 50 items were forwarded to counsel. The articles in question were removed by February 2, 2001

11. On February 15, the hearing of the contempt citation was scheduled for September 20 and 21 in Ottawa. Following submissions by the Crown and counsel for Nadeau regarding the continuation of the interim Order, Mr. Justice McKinnon ruled that provided that he posted all such articles, Nadeau could post

-4-

articles from the Standard Freeholder. He could not re-publish the article in the Alberta Report dated February 19, 2001. He was not permitted to opine on pending matters on the website. The existing Order was essentially to be continued.

Transcript of Proceedings, February 15, 2001.

Exhibit 9-Report Magazine Article

12. During the continuation of the Leduc trial on February 19, counsel for the accused proposed to call Nadeau as a witness on an application for a stay of proceedings. Prior to being sworn, Nadeau requested that the trial Judge recuse himself because of a conflict of interest, having previously represented Chief of Police Claude Shaver in 1994. Mr. Justice McKinnon declined to do so but indicated that he would attend at the police station to review any records of his involvement with the Cornwall Police Force including Constable Perry Dunlop who at this point in the trial appeared to have significance on the motion to stay the proceedings.

Transcript of Proceedings, February 19, 2001.

13. On February 20, 2001, Mr. Justice McKinnon ruled that he ought not to decide the application for a stay of proceedings and arranged for that motion to be heard by Mr. Justice Chadwick.

Transcript of Proceedings, February 20, 2001.

14. On March 2, 2001, proceedings against Leduc were stayed by Order of Mr. Justice Chadwick. The defence commenced an application for costs against the Crown.

15. On or about April 3, 2001, Nadeau posted an article under the heading, "Notes from site to April 2". By letter dated April 5, 2001, Mr. Justice McKinnon advised counsel for Nadeau and the Crown of the article and its constituting contempt of the administration of justice in Ontario. A copy of the article was enclosed and was to form part of the hearing of the contempt citation. The article in question was removed from the website on or about April 8, 2001.

Correspondence of Mr. Justice McKinnon with attachments.

[2]     At the outset Mr. Yegendorf on behalf of his client, took the position that Mr. Nadeau ought to be given an opportunity to apologize and thereby attempt to purge his contempt. Clearly, a sincere apology can contribute to completely purging a contempt: R. v. Peel Regional Police Service (2000) O.J. No. 4446; R. v. Martin (1985) 19 C.C.C. (3d) 248 (Ont.C.A.); R. v. Glasner (1995) 93 C.C.C. (3d) 226 (Ont.C.A.). However, as Hill J. in R. v. Peel Regional Police

-5-

Service points out, the quality of sincerity generally connotes an apology which is unqualified or unreserved and that a less than frank apology holds little juridical significance. As Hill J. further states, and quite properly so:

The role of an apology in purging contempt is entirely consistent with restraint in the use of the contempt power, proportionate response to the harm, and the role of contempt as an exercise of power to resurrect the supremacy of the Rule of Law.

[3]     Were I to find that an apology was sincere and meaningful, then it would be open to me to find that the alleged contemptuous acts had been purged. Were I to make that finding then of course that would be the end of the matter; there would be no further requirement for a show cause hearing and needless to say, there would be no finding of guilt.

[4]     With that in mind, Richard Nadeau testified at this hearing and described how he had become involved in this cause. In his web site posting of January 20, 2001, one of the subjects of the contempt citation, Mr. Nadeau in part stated :

Judge Colin McKinnon is relatively new to the bench, some four years I think. He is said to be a good judge. But prior to becoming a judge, he had a successful law practice. He was in fact the lawyer for our former Chief of Police Claude Shaver. He knows all about the cover ups over the Father Charlie/Ken Sequin affair. He knows about Cornwall's troubles. He knows that Shaver is a pedophile and yet, had him as a client. Did he check his biases and prejudices at the door?

[5]     Mr. Nadeau testified that he wrote this in anger, that he had nothing by way of proof insofar as these allegations were concerned, and that he had gone "over the top." He apologized for making the statements.

[6]     With respect to the April 3^rd web site posting, a posting brought to the attention of Mr. Yegendorf by Justice McKinnon on April 5^th, Mr. Nadeau wrote in part:

The conduct of Judges McKinnon and Chadwick is now under investigation. Judge McKinnon has served the CBC with a notice of liable. I am sure that he won't go any further than that. There is too much in his background that he won't want to go through disclosure. There is also a chance that both judges could be removed from the bench.

[7]     This second article is also the subject of the contempt citation. Mr. Nadeau testified that he had no proof of these statements, that it was pure speculation, that once again he had gone "a bit over the top" because of a personal crusade and he apologized.

[8]     In cross-examination Mr. Nadeau agreed that he was present at the opening of the Leduc trial when the non-publication order was made by Justice McKinnon. In fact a transcript of the proceedings of that date makes it abundantly clear that Justice McKinnon was very precise in the manner in which he described the nature of this order. He explained to those present in court

-6-

that there was to be no publication of the identity of any of the complainants or any information that could disclose the identity of the complainants in any media including the world wide web. Justice McKinnon explained that the purpose of the order was to ensure that there be no publication of proceedings conducted in the absence of the jury prior to the jury reaching a verdict. There was considerable discussion during the exchanges between Justice McKinnon and counsel on that occasion regarding the necessity of ensuring that the publication ban include the world wide web.

[9]     In cross-examination Mr. Nadeau stated that although he was present January 16^th he said he did not hear Justice McKinnon make this order and that perhaps he was not paying attention. This, I have concluded, is nonsense and I am satisfied that the reason for the order being specific as to the world wide web was precisely because of the activities of Mr. Nadeau and perhaps others. I am completely satisfied that Mr. Nadeau knew exactly what the order of January 16^th meant and what he was prohibited from doing.

[10]   The transcript of the proceedings of January 17, 2001 makes it clear that when Justice McKinnon made his order, apart from those involved in the proceedings, there were only two other people in court, the accused's wife and Mr. Nadeau.

[11]   During the proceedings on January 17, counsel brought to the attention of Justice McKinnon the nature of what Mr. Nadeau was publishing on his web site. Crown counsel advised the court that she had spoken directly with Mr. Nadeau and advised him of the implications of the Section 648 order and the offence created by Section 648 (2). The court then directly addressed Mr. Nadeau as follows:

The Court: Mr. Nadeau you were here in court yesterday when I made an order. The order I made, at least in my mind, and certainly to counsel, was very very clear. The order stated that:

People not be informed in any way prior to the jury coming to its verdict of any proceedings which took place in their absence... and I indicated that nothing that took place: In the absence of the jury was to be published in any newspaper nor broadcast in any way including dissemination of information through the world wide web until the jury has returned its verdict.

You were present when I gave that order, Mr. Nadeau, and low and behold it was brought to my attention this morning that you wrote a story on the world wide web, the web site which apparently you control, which I'm also informed has had over 71,000 hits to date. You wrote a story which fundamentally breached my order. You first of all appeared to have convicted Mr. Leduc by calling him a pedophile. You wrongly alleged that there were four complainants, when there are only three complainants. You presumed to identify the wife of the accused and you then went on to say: "The defence wants a trial by judge only and the

-7-

Crown wants a jury trial. The judge feels that it will be difficult to find fair and impartial jurors in Cornwall".

And on you go. That was a complete breach of my order. Do you acknowledge that that was a breach of my order?

Mr. Nadeau: I'll have to apologize to the court. I did not – first of all I don't understand the legal terminology which speaks to me of re-election or election for that matter.

Court Registrar: Please come forward.

Mr. Nadeau: I certainly concur with you that if you did make this order I wasn't aware of this order.

The Court: But you were sitting right in court when I made it.

Mr. Nadeau: I realize that but there was a lot going on related to election, re-election, okay and that went on for sometime. I didn't understand exactly the content of that argument coming from both sides okay. So therefore I wasn't – not aware okay of this order. Secondly as I read it this morning, I'm still somewhat confused by it because are you saying that there is no – there is a publication ban throughout this trial.

The Court: No.

Mr. Nadeau: Because it would appear, I mean ...

The Court: No. The ban ...

Mr. Nadeau: Sorry.

The Court: The ban relates to things occurring without the jury. Mr. Nadeau: Okay.

The Court: Everything that's done in the court room without the jury, fundamental was this motion to have a trial before me alone. Through disseminating this information that "the defence wants a trial by judge alone and the Crown wants a jury trial" assumed I decided. The Crown has demonstrated today, a fine sense of fairness by permitting now a re-election before a judge alone. But let's say ultimately in this trial, that I had determined that there would have to be a jury trial.

Mr. Nadeau: Yes.

-8-

The Court: And people had God knows how many people read your web site the defence would then be questioning jurors in a situation where it was known that the defence didn't want a jury. You see the problem that you've created?

Mr. Nadeau: I understand.

And further along Justice McKinnon states:

The Court: Okay so that's the difficulty. Now I have the power to hold you in contempt for this Mr. Nadeau.

Mr. Nadeau: I understand.

The Court: I'm not going to do that. I'm just trying to bring to your attention the seriousness of your actions and the damage that you do when this sort of thing continues.

Later on Justice McKinnon states:

The Court: I realize that Mr. Nadeau. What I recommend you do but I recommend very strongly is that if you are going to have further dealings or writings with this web site, retain legal counsel and check with legal counsel as to what your writing is permitted to be written or not.

Mr. Nadeau: There is already a remedy that's been put forward on that Your Honour.

The Court: Yes.

Mr. Nadeau: Okay there is a civil suit against me. The Court. Alright.

Mr. Nadeau. Okay by the Bishop and several priests.

And finally Justice McKinnon stated:

I do not intend to hold you in contempt of court but I do wish you to appreciate the seriousness of your actions because effectively you have compromised completely the Crown's ability to have a jury trial. That's what you basically accomplished. You've compromised their rights.

Mr. Nadeau: Well again I apologize to the Court for that ... but nonetheless like whatever your direction is I will follow it.

-9-

The Court: Okay, thank you Mr. Nadeau.

[12]   On the heels of Mr. Nadeau's apology and his apparent understanding of the court order, between January 19 and January 21, Mr. Nadeau published his "Bedrock of our Democracy" article on his web site, an article which, as indicated, is one of the subjects of the contempt citation.

[13]   Following the publication of that article on Monday January 22, 2001, details of its publication were brought to the attention of the court in the presence of Mr. Nadeau by Crown and defence counsel. After hearing submissions from counsel, Justice McKinnon cited Mr. Nadeau for contempt of court and ordered Mr. Nadeau to appear the following Monday with counsel.

[14]   In the meantime, Justice McKinnon ordered Mr. Nadeau not to publish anything with respect to any of the "project truth" trials on his web site until the matter could next be dealt with in court.

[15]   On January 29 Mr. Nadeau appeared with Mr. Yegendorf and after a discussion between counsel and the court, Mr. Nadeau, through his counsel, consented to Justice McKinnon's interim order that there be no further postings on Mr. Nadeau's web site. Indeed Mr. Yegendorf stated that Mr. Nadeau would consent to the purging or removal of the offending articles from his web site. 

[16]   The following exchange occurred:

Mr. Yegendorf: The only part of the order, Your Honour, that I'm not — I have not resolved at this point is the order with respect to outstanding charges. As I say, Mr. Nadeau will consent to numbers 1 and 2 that we just discussed relating to the charge before the court and I just would feel more comfortable dealing with the last part once I know something about this matter more than I do today. There is really not much I know about this matter Your Honour.

The Court: Yes.

Mr. Yegendorf: I was just retained.

The Court: I'm going to make an order Mr. Yegendorf and I'll hear you again but I'm going to make an order out of an abundance of caution that the web site be purged with respect to any stories that are on the web site relating to individuals whose trials have not been held.

Justice McKinnon further stated:

The Court: If Mr. Nadeau is going to post stories from the Standard Freeholder on the web site he must post all of them.

-10-

The matter was adjourned to February 15, 2001.

[17]   Essentially what occurred with respect to this matter on February 15 is that Mr. Nadeau, through his counsel, consented to a continuation of the interim order that nothing be published on the web site with respect to the matter over which Justice McKinnon was presiding and further that nothing be published with respect to any other pending criminal matters. 

[18]   There was some issue as to the third part of Justice McKinnon's order which dealt with re-publication on the web site of other media reports. After discussion with counsel, Justice McKinnon made it perfectly clear to Mr. Nadeau that if he was to republish other media articles on his web site, he was to republish all such articles. In an exchange with Justice McKinnon at the conclusion of the hearing on February 15, the following occurred:

Mr. Yegendorf: Yes Your Honour just to clarify. I take it that when you say that Mr. Nadeau is not permitted to opine on the web site, you're referring to pending matters.

The Court: Yes.

Mr. Yegendorf: All right. The Court. All outstanding.

Mr. Yegendorf: So we're just — that we're on all fours we're talking about essentially a continuation of the existing order.

The Court: Yes.

Mr. Yegendorf: With the exception that he can reprint Standard Freeholder articles as long as he prints them all.

The Court: Yes.

[19]   Following that attendance and as the Agreed Statement of Facts reveals, the proceedings against Jacques Leduc were stayed by order of Mr. Justice Chadwick on March 2, 2001. The defence at that time commenced an application for costs against the Crown.

[20]   I turn now to the April 3 article which Justice McKinnon brought to the attention of counsel by letter dated April 5, 2001. This forms the second part of the contempt citation.

[21]   It is Mr. Nadeau's position that by the time of this publication, on April 3, the trial was effectively over and that Justice McKinnon's non-publication order had lapsed. I completely disagree with Mr. Nadeau's position. Not only were the proceedings not completed in that costs had yet to be determined, the exchanges on February 15, 2001 between Justice McKinnon and Mr. Yegendorf make it abundantly clear as to the nature of the non-publication order.

[22]   What Mr. Nadeau did on April 3 was to publish a Standard Freeholder article dealing with the March 2 stay. He had some very explicit comments about the newspaper's editorial as

-11-

well as the decision of Justice Chadwick. This article was clearly contemptuous and was published in the face of an order prohibiting such activity. Mr. Nadeau knew exactly what he was doing at all times.

[23]   In B.C.G.E.U. v. British Columbia (A.G.), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214, the Supreme Court of Canada had occasion to deal with the issue of contempt of court. At page 12 Chief Justice Dickson commented with approval upon statements of former Chief Justice McRuer of the High Court of Ontario in an article published in 1952 in the Canadian Bar Review where Justice McRuer said:

A contempt may be either a criminal contempt or a civil contempt. The difference between contempts criminal and contempts civil seems to be that contempts which tend to bring the administration of justice into scorn, or which tend to interfere with the due course of justice, are criminal in nature, but a contempt in disregarding the orders of a judge of a civil court is not criminal in nature. It is the obstruction or interference with the fair administration of justice within which the law of criminal contempt is concerned, and it has nothing to do with the personal feelings of the judges; it is not a power to be used for vindication of the judge as a person and no judge should allow his personal feelings to have any weight in the matter.

[24]   Chief Justice Dickson continues at page 13:

In some instances the phrase ^"contempt of court" may be thought to be unfortunate because, as in the present case, it does not posit any particular aversion, abhorrence or disdain of the judicial system. In a legal context the phrase is much broader than the common meaning of "contempt" might suggest and embraces "where a person, whether a party to a proceeding or not, does any act which may tend to hinder the course of justice or show disrespect to the court's authority", "interfering with the business of the court on the part of the person who has no right to do so", "obstructing or attempting to obstruct the officers of the Court on their way to their duties^" — See Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law, vol. 1, ^2nd ed., at p. 441.

An intent to bring a court or judge into contempt is not an essential element of the offence of contempt of court. That was decided in R. v. Hill (1976), 73 D.L.R. (3d) 621 (B.C.C.A.). McIntyre J.A., speaking for a unanimous court said at p. 629:

Even, however, if the cases could not be distinguished on their facts, it is my opinion that an intent to bring a Court or Judge into contempt is not an essential ingredient of this office. In Canada the proposition stated in R. v. Gray, [1900] 2 Q.B. 36 at p. 40, by Lord Russell of Killowen has been accepted. He said:

- 12 -

Any act done of writing published calculated to bring a Court or a judge of the Court into contempt, or to lower his authority, is a contempt of Court. That is one class of contempt. Further, any act done or writing published calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice or the lawful process of the Courts is a contempt of Court.

These words have received the approval of the Supreme Court of Canada in Poje et al v. A-G. B.C. (1953), 105 C.C.C. 311 and in Re Duncan (1957), 11 D.L.R. (2d) 616. In my view, they express the law as it now stands in this country.

The word "calculatedas used here is not synonymous with the word "intended". The meaning it bears in this context is found in the Shorter Oxford English dictionary as fitted, suited, apt.

[25]   In order to establish the actus reus of contempt of court, the publication must prejudice the right of an accused to a fair trial by .the jury receiving information which they might improperly weigh. This must be a real risk, not a mere possibility of prejudice. In R. v. CHBC Television, 132 C.C.C. (3d) 390, Esson J. in dealing with contempt as publication stated at page 414:

The context in which reporters and publishers carry on their daily business demonstrates that they are mentally and physically capable of doing so and makes it reasonable to require that they be familiar with the rules which apply to reporting of court proceedings. Reporters and publishers, like licenced drivers, choose to engage in the activity of reporting court proceedings and thus they place themselves in a position of responsibility in relation to the court, to the parties before the court, and to the general public for whose benefit the courts exist... Publication contempt is not "truly criminal conduct" — it can better be described as "conduct otherwise lawful which is prohibited in the public interest". Those persons who engage in the business are in the best position to control the harm which may result from reporting matter calculated to prejudice a fair trial. They should therefore be held responsible for any violation.

In terms of the level of moral fault, the offence of publication contempt is analogous to regulatory offences which may be committed without significant moral fault in the usual sense.

[26]   Esson J. refers to the decision of R.V. Bowes Publishers Ltd. (1995) 30 Alberta Law Reports (3d) 236 where at page 240 Perras J. said when considering the essential elements of criminal contempt by publication that it was incumbent upon the Crown to prove the following essential elements: (1) the identity of the respondents as the ones responsible for the publication; (2) that it was the activity or conduct of the respondents that brought about the publication; and

- 13 -

(3)     that the respondents intentially published the articles and at the time of publication objectively ought to have foreseen that the articles posed a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial...

[27]   More recently Binder J. of the Alberta Court of Queens Bench had occasion to consider the issue of publication contempt in R. v. Edmonton Sun, [2000] A.J. No. 1600. At page 12 Binder J. sets out with approval the post Charter test for publication contempt enunciated by Berger J. in Re A. G. Alberta and Interwest Publications Ltd. (1990) 58 C.C.C. (3d) 114. These are:

I a.            The court, mindful of the judicial arsenal of weapons that may be employed to safeguard the integrity of the course of justice, must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the publication of the alleged contemptuous material constituted a real and substantial risk of prejudice to a fair trial; that is to say, that the publication was calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice.

b. Freedom of expression and of the press will yield to the right of an accused to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal and a pronouncement of contempt will be made only if the Crown has discharged this burden.

2.  The fact that information of the kind that may constitute contempt has been published is not determinative of the result.

3. The court must examine the factual underpinnings in each case and assess the matter in context.

Binder J. concludes:

The appropriate test for publication contempt, keeping in mind the various purposes of the law of contempt sub judice, can be summarized as follows:

The court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the publication of the alleged contemptuous material constituted a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the integrity of the administration of justice.

[28]   As to the mens rea of the crime of criminal intent, the law was neatly summed up by Hill J. in R. v. Peel Regional Police Service where at page 17 he stated:

The mens rea of the crime of criminal contempt, the intention or mental state of the alleged contemner, may be wilfull or knowing behaviour or reckless disregard or indifference that the conduct at hand would tend to undermine the authority of the court: United Nurses of Alberta v. Attorney-General of Alberta (1992) 71 C.C.C. (3d) 225... As stated by McLachlin J. at 253 of the United Nurses of Alberta decision:

-14 -

Therefore, when it is clear the accused must have known his or her act of defiance will be public, it may be inferred that he or she was at least reckless as to whether the authority of the court would be brought into contempt. 

[29]   In the present case, not only was Richard Nadeau in court when the order was made by Justice McKinnon January 16, 2001, I have found that his claim that he either did not understand or did not hear Justice McKinnon, cannot withstand scrutiny. Furthermore, after being given a stem warning by Justice McKinnon, Mr. Nadeau continued to publish reckless factual misstatements which he, himself, described as being "over the top". The language of Justice McKinnon's order was perfectly clear. In the face of that, Mr. Nadeau continued to publish the "Bedrock of our Democracy" article on January 20 and the April 3 commentary both of which were published in flagrant disregard of the court's order. Mr. Nadeau's present apologies have little impact on this court. He has apologized before and then gone right out and published articles on his web site in defiance of the court's order. 

[30]   In conclusion I find beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Nadeau is guilty of contempt of court on both occasions and that he has failed to show why he ought not be so found. 

[31]   I have received the Crown's submissions that there ought to be a fine in the range of $2,500 to $5,000 and from Mr. Yegendorf that his client is impecunious. In my view, the appropriate penalty would be a fine of $1,000 which is to be paid within ninety days.                                                                        

Released:      September 7, 2001 

                                                              The Honourable Mr. Justice J. D. Cunningham