Wednesday, January 03, 2007

No. 23929
Vancouver Registry





TAKE NOTICE that an application will be brought on behalf of the Accused pursuant to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom to the British Columbia Supreme Court at the Courthouse located at 800 Smithe St., Vancouver, British Columbia, on the 29th day of January, 2007 at the hour of 10:00 a.m. in the forenoon or as soon thereafter as the Motions my be heard for an Order that:

The Applicant claims protection of Sc.2a of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom in the charge of Alleged Criminal Contempt of Court against her in an environmental dispute and will argue her right to exercise her Freedom of Conscience under Sc.2a and is seeking relief in these areas:

2 The Applicant claims her rights to the protection of 2a, 2b,2c and 2d under the Charter have been infringed which includes not only the provisions that guarantees Freedom of Conscience, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press, but also Freedom of Access to the Press through Freedom of Association and Freedom of Peaceful Assembly. The Applicant claims that the present criteria used by the courts in British Columbia in environmental disputes that result in alleged civil contempt of court charges being raised to criminal contempt of court due to the amount of attention, or press, surrounding the protest denies the Applicant’s Charter rights of 2a,b,c, and d.

3 The Applicant will argue that that her rights under Sc 7 of the Charter has
also been infringed through this criteria for elevation of her alleged charges
and asks that the criteria of how much attention, or press, attends an
environmental protest be struck down pursuant to Sc. 24(1) The Claimant contends that only actual charges of alleged criminality by environmental protesters, that is, the use of violence against other persons or property, or threats of violence, should be the criteria for the elevation of alleged civil contempt to alleged criminal contempt.

The Applicant was, and is, being held in arrest by a trial judge under BC Rule 56 without an underlying specific charge by the complainant corporation, and the Applicant’s case has subsequently been turned over to the Crown, by invitation from the judge. The Applicant claims that this procedure gives the appearance of judicial bias and the Applicant seeks relief under Sc. 11(d) of the Charter to the right to a trial untainted by the appearance of judicial bias and to Sec. 15 of the right to equality before the law. The Applicant asks that the use of BC Rule 56 which gives the trial judge the right of arrest without a specific underlying charge by a company, or corporation or government complaint and which then enables the same judge to invite the Crown to take charge of the proceedings be declared unconstitutional and struck down pursuant to S24(1)

Betty Krawczyk
#204-1828 Frances St.
Vancouver, BC V5L 1Z7


  1. Megan5:50 PM

    Hi! I think what you do is great. I am Megan and 11 years old. I was assigned a project to search an activist and i chose you! I want to be like you when i get older. You are my idol!!!

  2. Anonymous9:27 AM

    I've been reading Betty's Blog and sympathize with you in your fight to obtain justice in the BC Court System. How civil contempt charges could be construed as criminal contempt is beyond my understanding. When there is no charges against you the Crown can't just invent them to serve it's own purposes. If logic is regarded as important then whoever is in charge of prosecution is not thinking logically to come to that conclusion. The constitutional right of your peaceful protest is obvious to all concerned citizens in one should have to be imprisoned for speaking out. It makes me wonder, who's purposes are being served in your case. The government's or the Forest Industry. It looks like you are being made an example of to ward of other possible Environmental Protest.