> they’ll just call the police and knock your door down
Not in this case they won't. They are absolutely not allowed to use force, even (legally) reasonable force, to enter. As such, if the defendant isn't home, they can't enter at all.
Also, the defendant is legally allowed to refuse entry. Or more precisely, they may only enter if the defendant permits entry. However, if the defendant does not permit entry, they may be in contempt of court.
And yes, I know the last bit is perverse. Apparently that's deliberate (at least it was in the English law from which the Canadian law was derived).
They would rather have it dealt with quietly in a court room than have a breach of the peace. In this case its your neighbors being protected not the defendant.
Depending on the local PD the police may be substantially less than thrilled that someone else is essentially serving a search warrant in their jurisdiction without a warrant. If the bailiff mouths off to the cops that respond (which he could very well do, bailiffs don't exactly have a lot of practice being polite with those that stand in their way) he could very well wind up being the one in handcuffs. You have nothing* to lose and plenty to gain by calling the police.
Predatory entities like huge corporations or legal trolls have the process of producing a court order entirely automated and an individual is simply unable to defend oneself without reacting accordingly at the right time. e.g. in the process of copyright trolling in Germany, one at some point has only 14 days to reject the claim sent from the court, otherwise the process automatically by default favours the predatory entity.
Perhaps something buried in the 20 pages of legalese that you consent to as “terms of service” when you “sign” your ISP/cable TV contract by saying “yes” into the phone when prompted?
