The applicants brought a contempt motion alleging the respondent failed to comply with a Licence Appeal Tribunal order requiring investigation and repair of water penetration in two townhouses.
Applying the civil contempt test and the criminal standard of proof, the court held that although the order was clear, the evidence did not establish deliberate and wilful disobedience beyond a reasonable doubt.
The respondent had retained engineering assistance, conducted multiple inspections and tests including a blower door test, performed repairs, and proposed further waterproofing investigations.
The contempt motion was dismissed, but the court made additional supervisory orders to facilitate further investigation and repairs in order to give effect to the Tribunal order.
