"Lackman was "not permitted to refuse to answer questions" and his lawyer wasn't permitted to counsel him in his answers.
"Any time I would question the process, they would threaten me with contempt of court proceedings," says Lackman."
I asked in the other thread, but it got buried - can someone versed with Canadian law comment on if this is how it's supposed to work? Were these just empty threats, or can you really be charged with contempt of court if you don't answer, and if you don't have the right to counsel on those questions?
The article is terrible. Who exactly coerced Lackman to answer arbitrary questions? Who was his lawyer? When did his lawyer arrive? Who threatened Lackman with contempt or court?
I've known the parties to a couple of Anton Piller orders and I don't believe there was any questioning. Anton Piller orders are essentially a civil search warrant to seize evidence. Go in, take the items sought by force if necessary and hand them to an independent lawyer who will keep them. The defendant or someone representing it if it's a corporation has to be there to witness it and be given an inventory of what's taken. There's no scope for questioning anyone.
The article said that a judge ruled the search unlawful after the fact, and one of the reasons for that was because of the questioning -- so I'm not surprised there was no questioning in the cases you are familiar with since they may have been carried out correctly.
My interpretation was that the questioning was unlawful since they asked about other companies that might be selling these android boxes. They were supposed to limit questions to his particular case.
>> Who was his lawyer? When did his lawyer arrive?
Personally, this is the part that really scares me. The majority of us Canadians do not have personal lawyers. If this happened to me, I'd be stuck trying to find a lawyer for the first time. I'm sure the thugs entering my home would seize my computers and phone immediately, and refuse to allow me to use them to look up and contact a lawyer. Due to the seizure, I'd be unable to find representation. What do you do at that point?
Article 1 makes the the CCoRaF a joke of a "bill of rights":
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
This seemed incredibly questionable for me when I read it. Of course, if he was prevented from consulting with his lawyer, how would he know if this is an empty threat or not?
"Any time I would question the process, they would threaten me with contempt of court proceedings," says Lackman."
I asked in the other thread, but it got buried - can someone versed with Canadian law comment on if this is how it's supposed to work? Were these just empty threats, or can you really be charged with contempt of court if you don't answer, and if you don't have the right to counsel on those questions?