Contempt of court

The court addresses a motion by the estate trustees of Carmen Debono to hold certain siblings in contempt or, alternatively, to strike their pleadings for failure to comply with a court order requiring disclosure of business email credentials and documents.

The court finds repeated, deliberate non-compliance and strikes the pleadings of David Debono and Elizabeth Muscat, stays the wrongful dismissal action until pleadings are amended, and awards significant costs.

The court declines to proceed with contempt, emphasizing that such proceedings are a last resort in civil matters.

The court found the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) in contempt of court for circumventing a court order prohibiting it from licensing architectural technologists except as authorized by regulation.

After a prior order voided technologist licences, the OAA issued architect licences to technologists with the same practice restrictions as the banned licences, using a statutory committee process.

The court held this was a breach of both the letter and spirit of the order, as the process was a disguised continuation of the prohibited policy.

The decision reviews the statutory context, the events after the order, and the legal test for contempt, concluding that the OAA intentionally disobeyed the order.

This decision addresses a show cause proceeding against counsel, Jisuh Lee, for submitting a factum containing fictitious case citations generated by artificial intelligence in a civil estates matter.

The court reviews the duties of counsel to verify authorities, the new certification rule for facta, and the professional and ethical implications of AI use in legal practice.

The court finds that Ms. Lee has adequately purged any contempt through her admissions, apology, corrective actions, and commitment to further professional development, and dismisses the show cause order on conditions.

This decision addresses two issues: (1) the use of artificial intelligence in legal submissions, specifically the submission of facta containing non-existent or misrepresented case law, and (2) the merits of a motion concerning the administration of the estate of Xiang Guo Li, including the setting aside of a divorce order, estate trustee issues, and the rights of competing spouses.

The court set aside the divorce order for fraud and duress, ordered disclosure and administration steps for the estate, and required the applicant's counsel to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt for submitting false authorities.

This endorsement addresses the aftermath of a dismissed injunction motion by Howard Youhanan and his companies against their mortgagees, Marcus Tzaferis and his companies.

The court clarifies that its interim injunction is no longer in force and that Cannect is free to exercise its mortgage remedies.

The court admonishes Mr. Youhanan for providing false information to the Landlord-Tenant Board regarding the status of the court’s orders, directs him to correct the record, and warns of possible contempt proceedings if such conduct continues.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside an administrative dismissal and a motion for contempt against Susan Stevens for breaching court orders related to the disposition of a recreational vehicle (RV) subject to a Mareva injunction.

The court found that the orders were clear and unequivocal, that Ms. Stevens had actual knowledge of them, and that she intentionally breached them by selling the RV.

The court found Ms. Stevens in contempt, ordered her to provide documentation and pay over the proceeds, and adjourned the penalty phase to allow her an opportunity to purge her contempt.

This decision concerns a dispute over millions of dollars lent to Trip Support Inc., a failed “Book Now, Pay Later” airline ticket financing business.

The plaintiffs sought a contempt order for the defendants’ failure to disclose assets as required by a Mareva injunction, while the defendants moved to set aside the injunction for inadequate disclosure by the plaintiffs.

The court found the defendants in contempt for failing to disclose Spanish property, but also set aside the Mareva injunction due to the plaintiffs’ significant omissions in their ex parte motion materials.

The decision addresses the standards for contempt and the duty of full and frank disclosure in urgent injunction proceedings.

The court found Bryan Lozon in contempt for failing to deliver three of four specific snowmobiles as required by a Court of Appeal order, concluding that he had tampered with VIN tags and delivered incomplete or incorrect items.

The decision reviews the factual background, the evidence regarding each snowmobile, and the legal test for contempt, ultimately finding that Bryan's explanations were not credible and that he had wilfully failed to comply with the order.

The appellant, Gaetano Di Blasi, appealed a trial order declaring a berm he constructed to be in breach of municipal bylaw, authorizing the Regional Municipality of York to enter his property for remediation, enjoining him from interfering with water flow, and requiring him to pay damages in nuisance.

He also appealed a contempt finding and a $10,000 fine for failing to comply with a 2014 order to remove the berm.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge’s decision, upheld the findings, and dismissed the appeal, awarding $25,000 in costs to the respondent.

The court considered motions regarding contempt of a prior order and the setting aside of an interim injunction in a dispute over residential construction and compliance with the Building Code Act.

The respondent was found in contempt for limited conduct but had made significant efforts to purge the contempt.

The court set aside the interim injunction, ordered the respondent to maintain engineering oversight and pay for inspections, and imposed a $7,500 fine for contempt.

The applicant brought a motion for a finding of contempt against the respondent for breaching a court order that prohibited their daughter from being in the presence of Jake Isenor, who had a history of mental health issues, substance abuse, and domestic violence.

The court found the respondent intentionally breached the order on multiple occasions in July and December 2023, by arranging for the child to be in Isenor's presence and attempting to conceal these breaches.

The respondent's testimony regarding her lack of awareness of Isenor's presence was found to lack credibility.

The court concluded the respondent was in contempt of court and directed the parties to arrange a penalty hearing.

The defendant, Vivian McClintock, appeared for a Part III trial via Zoom but refused to cooperate, provide her full name, or answer the court's questions, exhibiting behaviour reminiscent of OPCA litigants.

Despite multiple warnings, she continued her contemptuous conduct.

The court, finding direct contempt in the face of the court, issued an arrest warrant for Ms. McClintock pursuant to s. 91 of the Provincial Offences Act, adjourning the original trial sine die.

The court affirmed its common law and statutory authority to issue such a warrant for remote participants.

This ruling provides the judge's full reasons for citing defence counsel, Ms. Eliany, in contempt.

The contempt arose from Ms. Eliany's refusal to provide a requested memorandum outlining her position on a s. 276 application during a judicial pre-trial conference.

The court affirmed its authority under s. 625 of the Criminal Code to order such a memo, emphasizing the importance of meaningful participation in pre-trials to promote fair and expeditious hearings and efficient case management.

The judge found that Ms. Eliany's refusal to comply with the order constituted a failure to effectively participate in the pre-trial process.

The appellant, Charles James Hevey, appealed a finding of contempt made against him in a family law proceeding for allegedly violating two preservation orders.

The Court of Appeal found that the first preservation order was not violated as the transactions did not diminish asset value and the appellant did not personally benefit.

Regarding the second order, the court determined that the order lacked clarity, particularly concerning the interplay between paragraphs permitting business operations and reporting requirements.

Applying the *Carey v. Laiken* test for civil contempt, the court concluded that the order did not clearly and unequivocally prohibit the impugned mortgage.

Consequently, the contempt findings and associated sanctions were set aside.

The applicant father brought a motion to find the respondent mother in contempt of court for wilfully disobeying a final order regarding parenting time and an interim court order.

The mother repeatedly failed to return the child, citing misinterpretations of COVID-19 health guidelines, despite negative tests and police intervention.

The court found the mother in contempt, satisfying the test beyond a reasonable doubt, noting her deliberate actions and disregard for court orders.

Despite the finding, no jail time or fines were imposed due to the mother's medical conditions and existing child protection prohibitions on her parenting time.

The court amended the parenting order, granting primary residence to the father and restricting the mother's contact and future litigation without leave.

The defendant, Dr. Saad, sought a declaratory order that evidence he would provide in support of a renewed motion to stay the action would be inadmissible in a pending contempt proceeding against him, relying on the s. 13 Charter right against self-incrimination.

The Plaintiffs opposed, arguing the evidence was not compelled and the proceedings were not "other proceedings." The court dismissed Dr. Saad's motion, holding that his evidence on the stay motion was not statutorily compelled, and therefore s. 13 of the Charter was not engaged.

The court clarified that the proper time to seek use immunity would be at the contempt hearing itself.

The applicant father sought full recovery of costs related to a contempt motion where the respondent mother was found in contempt of prior court orders regarding parenting time and information sharing.

The mother's non-compliance led to the father having no contact with the child and unilateral decisions by the mother.

The court found the mother acted in bad faith due to her intentional breaches and efforts to alienate the child.

Despite the mother's financial circumstances, the court ordered her to pay $55,000 in costs to the father, emphasizing the seriousness of contempt and the need to sanction inappropriate litigation behaviour.

The applicant father brought a motion for contempt against the respondent mother for failing to provide access to their child as per a 2012 consent order.

The court found the mother in contempt, noting her deliberate non-compliance despite warnings from two judges.

However, the court imposed a nominal fine of one cent, emphasizing that contempt motions are a last resort and not for varying final orders.

The issue of compensatory access, sought by the father as a remedy, was remitted to the trial judge in the ongoing Motion to Change proceeding, as the contempt motion was procedurally flawed and brought in the wrong proceeding.

The plaintiff, Drew Reid, brought a motion seeking to quash the enforcement of Ganaraska Credit Union Ltd.'s mortgage, an accounting and return of personal possessions, and a finding of contempt against the defendants for allegedly defying a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) lien.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the mortgage sale was not a "fire sale" and was for fair value, the CRA lien did not claim priority over the mortgages, and the plaintiff's attempts to stay enforcement lacked merit, especially as the property had already been sold.

The court also clarified that a CRA lien is not a court order for the purposes of a contempt finding.

The Respondent brought a motion for contempt against the Applicant for alleged breaches of parenting time, communication, joint decision-making, and financial disclosure orders.

The court found the Applicant in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt for wilfully breaching the parenting time and communication terms of previous orders, specifically regarding the child's access to the Respondent.

The court found the Applicant had not genuinely encouraged the child's relationship with the father and had abdicated parental authority.

The finding of contempt was limited to parenting time breaches, with other alleged breaches serving as notice for future compliance.

Sanctions were deferred to a subsequent appearance, with encouragement for parenting time to resume.