Law360 Canada ( September 9, 2019, 9:38 AM EDT) -- Appeal by the defendants from convictions for criminal contempt for having defied an injunction restraining protestors from blocking access to a pipeline expansion project. The appellants were part of many anti-pipeline protestors who allegedly breached the injunction by physically obstructing, impeding, or otherwise preventing access by Trans Mountain, its contractors, employees, or agents to the site. The police gave protestors time to read the injunction and voluntarily leave the area to avoid arrest. The appellants argued the trial judge erred in law by conflating the test of criminal contempt of court and allowing the Crown to prove mens rea solely on proof of publicity rather than on proof of a specific intent to depreciate the authority of the court, or a recklessness in relation to such. The trial judge also erred by inferentially making a finding that each of the appellants possessed the specific intent of depreciating the authority of the court solely on the circumstantial evidence of publicity....