E. P. Belobaba

Following a prior finding of civil contempt for breaching an injunction prohibiting dissemination of confidential business information, the court considered the appropriate sanction.

The defendant knowingly and deliberately violated a court order by distributing a press release containing confidential information and refusing to provide disclosure of recipients, showing persistent defiance and no remorse.

The court emphasized the importance of deterrence and the integrity of court orders in the administration of justice.

Finding that a fine would be ineffective due to the defendant’s financial circumstances and continuing defiance, the court imposed a custodial sanction.

A 20‑day jail sentence to be served intermittently over five weekends was ordered, with the sentence stayed for 30 days to permit the defendant to seek a stay pending appeal.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 60.11(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking a contempt finding against a former subcontractor who published a press release disclosing confidential business information after being served with an interim injunction prohibiting publication.

The court reviewed the legal test for civil contempt, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the order was clear, that the alleged contemnor had knowledge of the order, and that the breach was deliberate and wilful.

Evidence showed the respondent had actual knowledge of the injunction yet failed to take reasonable steps to prevent publication of the press release and refused to disclose the recipients of confidential information as required by the order.

The court rejected the respondent’s arguments that the order did not require post-order disclosure or that publication could not be stopped.

The court concluded that the respondent knowingly and wilfully breached the order in both letter and spirit.

Following a damages inquiry in which the defendants were awarded damages including legal costs, the defendants sought additional partial indemnity costs for a prior recusal motion.

The court determined that the costs associated with the recusal motion had already been included in the damages award for legal costs following review of the defendants’ docketed accounts.

Because those costs were already compensated in the earlier award, they could not be recovered again.

The court therefore dismissed the belated request for additional costs and declined to award further costs for the present dispute.

The Association of Justices of the Peace of Ontario brought an application seeking a declaration regarding the appropriate salary indexing adjustment for the 2008-2009 salary year.

The court had previously adjourned the application to allow the government time to respond to the Remuneration Commission's recommendation.

After the government provided its response, the court dismissed the application, holding that the appropriate remedy was now judicial review of the government's decision based on the standard of simple rationality.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for a trading loss caused by a botched share transfer, arguing it was statute-barred.

The plaintiff argued the claim was not discovered until 2010 when new information was disclosed.

The court found the plaintiff knew enough material facts by April 2007 to commence a legal proceeding.

Even accounting for a nine-month tolling period during an Ombudsman investigation, the action commenced in November 2011 was well beyond the two-year limitation period.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

The plaintiff, an 18-year employee, was terminated from his position as Service Manager but immediately offered an identical position at the same salary at a related dealership.

The plaintiff refused the offer, citing concerns about seniority and the future of the new dealership, and sued for wrongful dismissal.

The court found that the plaintiff's refusal was objectively unreasonable and that he failed to mitigate his damages.

The action was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendant.

The offender was convicted of multiple counts of trafficking cocaine, possessing proceeds of crime, offering to transfer a firearm, and possession for the purpose of trafficking following an undercover police operation.

The Crown sought a global sentence of five to six years, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of the large quantity of cocaine sold against the offender's significant community volunteer work, minor dated record, and compliance with bail.

The court imposed a global sentence of three years in penitentiary, along with a ten-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.