The plaintiffs brought a motion for contempt against the defendants, alleging they breached a Mareva injunction by using frozen assets to pay for living and legal expenses.
In response, the defendants brought several procedural motions.
Dr. Saad moved to strike compelled evidence from the plaintiffs' contempt motion record, arguing it violated his Charter rights against self-incrimination.
The court dismissed this motion, finding that a contempt motion is not 'other proceedings' under s. 13 and that ss. 7 and 11(c) did not apply to previously compelled evidence.
Dr. Saad also moved under Rule 21 to exclude prior judicial rulings made in the civil action from the contempt motion.
The court granted this motion, holding that findings made on a civil standard are inadmissible in a quasi-criminal contempt proceeding.
The plaintiffs moved to compel the defendants to answer undertakings and produce documents.
The court ordered Dr. Saad to answer undertakings but ruled the answers could not be used in the contempt motion, and declined to order further document production that would conscript the defendants to assist in their own prosecution.
The court also limited the plaintiffs' disclosure obligations to the alleged breach, refusing broad discovery on the underlying fraud.
Finally, the court dismissed Mohammed's motion to stay the contempt proceedings pending his appeal on jurisdiction.
