Contempt of court

The plaintiff moved for a contempt finding against RBC Life Insurance Company and Anna Watroba for alleged non-compliance with a prior order to produce the complete RBC Claims Manual, also seeking disclosure of officers' names and striking of the defence.

The court found the original order ambiguous regarding the scope of "complete manual" beyond the 67 headings initially referenced in evidence.

As contempt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a clear, unequivocal order and intentional breach, the ambiguity precluded such a finding.

The court dismissed all of the plaintiff's requests, noting the underlying issue was inaccurate evidence provided by the defendants in the prior motion, not a clear breach of the order.

No costs were awarded due to the defendants' role in creating the problem through inaccurate evidence.

The respondent brought a motion seeking a contempt declaration against the applicant for failing to comply with previous orders regarding property expenses, dismissal of the applicant's will challenge, and an order for the applicant to vacate the deceased's property and list it for sale.

The court found that contempt orders could not enforce fixed monetary obligations under Rule 60.11, thus declining the contempt finding for arrears.

It also declined to dismiss the applicant's will challenge, finding it unwarranted for financial non-compliance.

However, the court ordered the applicant to vacate the property due to his failure to pay carrying costs and directed that all outstanding arrears be deducted from his share of the estate residue.

The request to list the property for sale was dismissed.

The Noble Defendants brought a motion to dismiss or stay the action, alleging abuse of process due to the plaintiffs' failure to immediately disclose a settlement agreement (the "Bowen Agreement") with co-defendant David Bowen.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to disclose key terms of the Bowen Agreement, which changed the adversarial dynamic between the plaintiffs and Bowen, thus constituting an abuse of process.

Despite the judge's personal reservations about the Noble Defendants' conduct, the court was bound by Court of Appeal jurisprudence to stay the action.

The motion to stay was granted.

This motion concerned the ongoing contempt of Robert Kennepohl for failing to comply with multiple court orders related to the administration of the Estate of Helene Marie-Therese Kennepohl.

Despite previous findings of contempt, fines, costs, and extensions, the respondent remained non-compliant and failed to appear at the hearing.

The court, finding no other effective sanctions, ordered the respondent's imprisonment with escalating terms for continued non-compliance, emphasizing the disregard for the court and the impact on the estate administration.

The accused, Salman Jogiyat, was acquitted of first-degree murder but pleaded guilty to contempt of court for refusing to disclose the identities of other individuals involved in the circumstances surrounding the murder during his trial testimony, despite being ordered to do so by the court.

The court considered the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing, including deterrence and denunciation, as well as the accused's personal circumstances, including a Mild Intellectual Disability and a significant criminal record.

The Crown sought a four-year penitentiary term, while the defence suggested 24 to 30 months.

The court imposed a three-year term of penitentiary imprisonment, finding it proportionate and necessary for deterrence and denunciation, aligning with the established sentencing range for such contempt.

This endorsement addresses costs following a decision on two motions in a family law dispute.

The Applicant sought financial disclosure, interim child and spousal support, and litigation expenses under Rule 24(18) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the Applicant to be the more successful party, despite not achieving all requested relief and exhibiting some unreasonable behaviour (e.g., extraordinary support requests, misuse of credit card for legal fees).

The Respondent's failure to provide complete financial disclosure, delay in stating his support position, and unilateral termination of a credit card arrangement (potentially contempt of court) were deemed unreasonable.

The court awarded the Applicant $40,000 in all-inclusive costs, emphasizing proportionality and reasonableness, and clarified that prior payments made by the Respondent towards the Applicant's legal and expert fees via credit card should be credited against the Rule 24(18) order, not the costs award.

A non-party sibling, Sandra Gail Grier, brought a motion for contempt against D.J. Grier and, in the alternative, for disclosure of settlement approval documents in estate litigation involving her siblings D.J. Grier and J.L. Grier, both under disability.

The motion for contempt was dismissed due to improper personal service.

The court granted partial disclosure, ordering D.J. Grier and J.L. Grier to serve Sandra and Garret (Sandra's son) with specific affidavits related to the settlement approval, excluding solicitor-client privileged information, and ordered certain affidavits to be sealed.

Sandra was awarded $1,000 in costs, with the determination of who pays to be made later.

The plaintiff, Jennifer Horrocks, brought an ex parte motion for leave to register certificates of pending litigation against properties sold by the defendant, Bruce McConville, and related corporate entities.

The plaintiff alleged these sales were fraudulent conveyances designed to defeat her family law claims for equalization and support.

The court granted the motion, finding a high probability of the plaintiff recovering judgment in the main family law action, sufficient evidence of intent to defeat creditors based on several 'badges of fraud,' and that the balance of convenience favored issuing the certificates to prevent further disposition of assets to bona fide purchasers without notice.

The defendant Robert Nelson was found in contempt of court orders, including a Mareva injunction, for failing to disclose information and records.

Despite being given an opportunity to purge his contempt, he failed to comply.

The court considered the purposes of sanctioning contempt (ensuring future compliance and upholding public respect for court processes) and relevant factors including proportionality, mitigating/aggravating factors, deterrence, and denunciation.

Given the seriousness of breaching a Mareva order, the deliberate nature of the non-compliance, and the lack of genuine remorse or effort to purge contempt, the court imposed a two-week custodial sentence.

Costs were also awarded to the plaintiff Anise Odeh.

The applicant sought an urgent hearing and leave to bring a motion regarding suspended access, despite a prior order requiring leave from the case management judge.

The respondent also brought a cross-motion without leave.

The case management judge, Lemay J., granted leave for both motions to proceed, finding a prima facie urgency due to a breached court order and the respondent's explanation.

However, Lemay J. transferred the substantive hearing to Fowler Byrne J. and issued strict procedural directions for future communications and motions, emphasizing the role of the case management judge and warning against contempt for non-compliance.

The respondent mother brought a contempt motion against the applicant father for failing to return their two children after an access visit, in breach of a prior consent order.

The father argued he withheld the children due to COVID-19 risks associated with the mother's employment and the children's expressed desire to stay with him.

The court found the father deliberately misled the court, engaged in self-help, and that his motives were likely to gain a litigation advantage regarding primary residency and child tax benefits.

The court found the father in contempt, ordered the immediate return of the children, and adjourned for submissions on sanctions and costs, including potential police enforcement.

The Respondent brought a motion to cite the Applicant for contempt of prior access orders concerning their 8-year-old daughter, and subsequently moved for directions to set a trial date for the contempt motion and enforce interim orders.

The court noted significant issues with the child's relationship with the Respondent, stemming from the Respondent's comportment, and the child's forceful refusal of contact.

The judge found the Respondent's tone imperious and his credibility reduced, concluding that the child's problems were complex and unlikely to be resolved by a contempt trial, with negligible chances of proving deliberate breach by the Applicant.

The motion for directions was dismissed without costs, and the contempt motion was adjourned for trial, with a recommendation for reconciliation counselling or a motion to change.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion for contempt against the applicant mother for refusing access to their child, Tyler Dawn, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered the child's best interests and the safety concerns raised by the applicant regarding the respondent's adherence to COVID-19 protocols, including travel for access and the respondent's continued work outside his home.

Applying principles from Ribeiro v. Wright and Ruffolo v. David, the court found the applicant had justified reasons for suspending access.

The respondent's motion for contempt was dismissed, and his alternating weekend access was suspended for four weeks, with a provision for review.

This decision addresses a procedural tangle involving two related self-represented proceedings: an action (Hydroslotter Action) and an application (Hydroslotter Application).

The plaintiff in the action brought a motion to strike the defendants' Statement of Defence and Counterclaim and for a finding of contempt due to non-compliance with disclosure orders.

The court dismissed the motion to strike and for contempt, finding that while the defendants' compliance was imperfect, they had made efforts, and the proportionality of the requested disclosure needed further assessment.

Instead, the court ordered cross-examination on affidavits of documents and resubmission of a document list in proper format.

Regarding the Hydroslotter Application, which sought declarations of defamation and significant damages, the court ruled that a tort action for damages cannot be commenced by application, particularly when material facts are in dispute and general or punitive damages are sought.

Consequently, the application was ordered to be converted into an action, with parties to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure for actions.

No costs were awarded, as the plaintiff/applicants were largely unsuccessful.

The plaintiffs were awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis for two motions heard on January 23, 2020.

The defendants' motion to discharge a Mareva injunction was largely unsuccessful, while the plaintiffs' contempt motion was adjourned but found reasonable.

The court considered the importance of the matter to the plaintiffs, the defendants' deficient materials, and the principle of proportionality, fixing costs at $5,610.71.

This endorsement addresses a procedural dispute regarding the order of upcoming motions.

The Defendants brought a motion for contempt and other relief, alleging the Plaintiff violated a prior court order.

The Plaintiff, in turn, brought a motion to strike the Defendants' contempt motion, arguing it could not succeed and seeking to avoid being compelled to testify or submit an affidavit in defense of the contempt allegations.

The court agreed with the Plaintiff, ruling that the motion to strike should be heard first, as its success could significantly reduce the need for the Defendants' broader motion and protect the Plaintiff's right not to testify in contempt proceedings.

Liban Omar was acquitted of first-degree murder but subsequently sentenced for contempt of court.

During his murder trial, Omar testified in his own defence, claiming a "mystery man" committed the murder and provided him with details, but he adamantly refused to name this individual despite court orders and warnings.

The court found his refusal to answer proper questions, while voluntarily testifying, constituted serious contempt.

The judge sentenced Omar to three years imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, and denied credit for the 3.5 years Omar had spent in custody on the murder charge, as that time was not "as a result of the offence" of contempt.

The plaintiff moved for an order finding the Media Defendants (Balita Newspaper, Balita Media Inc., and Tess Cusipag) in criminal contempt of a permanent injunction issued by Lederman J. on July 13, 2016.

The injunction prohibited the Media Defendants from publishing statements suggesting the plaintiff committed criminal fraud or was a pathological liar.

The court found that the Media Defendants intentionally re-published and encouraged others to disseminate the same defamatory allegations, asserting their truth and attributing their prior loss to a conspiracy, despite knowing the injunction.

The court concluded that the defendants' conduct constituted criminal contempt due to its open, continuous, and flagrant violation of a court order, transcending a private dispute and affronting the administration of justice.

The Respondents (City of Brampton and CBO) brought a motion alleging the Appellant (Ahmed Elbasiouni) was in contempt of a prior court order regarding property remediation and zoning variances.

The court found the Appellant technically in breach of the order because his applications to the Committee of Adjustments (COA) and Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) did not seek the specific variances contemplated by the order.

However, due to confusion arising from discussions between the Appellant and the CBO without the City's counsel, and the lack of court leave to vary the original order, the court dismissed the contempt motion.

The court emphasized the need for finality in the three-year-old matter and directed the parties to engage in further discussions to determine the way forward for remediation, with strict adherence to a new timetable.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action brought a contempt motion against Merchant Law Group LLP and two of its lawyers for allegedly breaching a carriage order that stayed MLG's Ontario action and prohibited similar class actions without leave.

The court found that MLG's subsequent emails to Ontario residents, which included retainer agreements referencing "class proceedings," were careless, unprofessional, and arguably in breach of the order.

However, the court could not find contempt beyond a reasonable doubt because the emails primarily discussed "joinder actions" and the clarity of the order regarding class actions was established after some of the impugned emails.

Despite dismissing the contempt motion, the court expressed strong displeasure with the respondents' conduct and ordered them to pay $5,000 in costs to the plaintiffs, and issued a further order clarifying future prohibitions on contacting Ontario residents for class actions.