R v Asselin – 2019 MBCA 94 (Cameron JA):
[28] Section 708 provides:
Contempt
708(1) A person who, being required by law to attend or remain in attendance for the purpose of giving evidence, fails, without lawful excuse, to attend or remain in attendance accordingly is guilty of contempt of court.
Punishment
708(2) A court, judge, justice or provincial court judge may deal summarily with a person who is guilty of contempt of court under this section and that person is liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ninety days or to both, and may be ordered to pay the costs that are incident to the service of any process under this Part and to his detention, if any.[29] The appellant argues that the common law power to punish for the offence of contempt of court has been circumscribed by section 708. In his view, the entire proceedings against him should have been taken pursuant to that section and the provision of authority to “[a] court, judge, justice or provincial court judge” to deal with a person to whom the section applies clearly indicates that it is applicable to a provincial superior court judge.
[49] In my view, the argument of the appellant must fail. The appellant conflates the jurisprudence regarding the proviso in section 127(1) with the inherent common law power of a superior court to punish for contempt. The proviso is a discrete provision in the Code. When Hamilton JA made the above statement, she was referring to the proviso and section 708 and not the ability to proceed by contempt under the common law. Indeed, in that case, the Court was careful to distinguish between contempt proceedings and a prosecution under the Code (see paras 86-89). There is nothing in the language of section 708 that purports to oust the common law jurisdiction of the court over contempt proceedings. I would therefore decline to interpret section 708 in the manner suggested by the appellant.
[50] Based on all of the above, I would therefore dismiss this ground of appeal.
-
Case Category: Contempt