Contempt of court

The applicant children's aid society sought a penalty after the respondent mother was found in contempt for posting information about child protection proceedings on TikTok, breaching a court order.

The respondent refused to purge her contempt, claiming freedom of speech and civil rights, and stated she would not obey the court order even if jailed.

The court applied the Cassidy factors for contempt sentencing in family law.

Finding that the respondent flaunted her disregard for the law and that no less restrictive option was available, the court sentenced her to three days of imprisonment.

The plaintiff, a lawyer, brought actions against the defendants for a prolonged campaign of internet defamation and harassment related to his involvement in art forgery litigation.

After the defendants' statements of defence were struck and they were noted in default, the court held a damages hearing.

The court found the defamation allegations were properly pleaded and awarded the plaintiff $300,000 in general damages, $100,000 in aggravated damages, and $50,000 in punitive damages, plus costs.

The court also addressed the defendants' ongoing defiance of court orders and unexecuted bench warrants for contempt.

The respondent mother brought a motion to find the applicant father in contempt for vaccinating their child against COVID-19 without her consent, in breach of a final parenting order granting her final decision-making authority.

The court found that the father intentionally breached the order and fabricated email evidence to conceal his actions.

However, applying a staged approach to contempt in high-conflict family disputes, the court declined to make a formal contempt finding.

Instead, the court issued a declaration of breach and fined the father $5,000 pursuant to Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules.

The mother's request for a fresh parenting assessment was dismissed as premature.

The father brought a motion for contempt, alleging the mother intentionally withheld their 11-year-old child and unilaterally enrolled her in private school, contrary to a 2017 consent final order for week-about shared parenting.

The mother argued the child did not want to visit the father.

The court found the mother breached the orders by failing to apply normal parental authority to encourage the child's compliance and by making unilateral decisions.

However, the court declined to find the mother in contempt, noting it is a remedy of last resort.

The court reaffirmed the week-about parenting schedule and deferred issues of primary residence and decision-making to trial.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce a prior judgment granting permanent injunctions against the defendant for a years-long campaign of internet harassment and defamation.

The plaintiffs sought orders to remove new defamatory publications that came to their attention after the original summary judgment motions were argued.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing the court was functus officio and raising other procedural objections.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments, holding that while it is functus officio regarding the claims decided in the judgment, it retains jurisdiction to enforce its orders.

The motion was granted.

The parties settled a commercial tenancy dispute prior to the hearing of their application and cross-application.

However, the court issued an endorsement to address a false statement made by the applicant in a sworn affidavit regarding his travel to China.

After receiving an explanation that the applicant had indeed travelled to China but on a different airline and date than sworn, the court declined to pursue a contempt hearing.

The court cautioned that false statements in affidavits are taken seriously and could preclude equitable remedies such as relief against forfeiture.

The City of Kawartha Lakes brought an application for a permanent injunction, a closure order, and a mandatory remediation order against the respondents for operating an illegal commercial fill site on environmentally sensitive land.

The City also brought a motion for contempt against one respondent for continuing the fill operation in breach of a prior interim injunction.

The court granted the permanent injunction, closure order, and mandatory order, finding the respondents had blatantly violated municipal by-laws and imported massive amounts of contaminated fill.

The court also found the respondent in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt and ordered him to purge his contempt by remediating the property at his own expense.

The applicant father brought a motion to find the respondent mother in contempt of four court orders regarding his parenting time and an order requiring disclosure of information about the child.

The court found that the mother had willfully disobeyed the parenting time orders by failing to take positive steps to require the 15-year-old child to attend access, instead encouraging the child's estrangement.

The court found the mother in contempt for the parenting time breaches but exercised its discretion not to find her in contempt for failing to disclose the child's babysitting address, reserving the penalty to a subsequent remedies hearing.

The plaintiff developer sought a permanent injunction against protestors who occupied its lands and halted construction.

The self-proclaimed leader of the protestors, who was added as a defendant, openly defied previous interlocutory injunctions and stated his intention to continue doing so.

The court held that it was an abuse of process for a party to participate in proceedings while in flagrant contempt of court orders.

The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to prohibit the defendant from further participation until he and his followers vacate the lands and comply with the court's orders.

The applicant child protection agency brought a motion for contempt against the respondent mother for refusing to comply with a temporary order granting the father supervised access that could transition to unsupervised access at the agency's discretion.

The mother refused to allow visits at the father's home despite investigations into abuse allegations being closed without charges.

The court found the mother in contempt, as the order was clear, her disobedience was deliberate, and the contempt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court also modified the prior order to implement a gradual schedule for unsupervised access at the father's home.

The mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the parties' child attend school online due to COVID-19 concerns and a finding of contempt against the father for unilaterally registering the child for in-person attendance.

The father brought a cross-motion for the child to attend in-person and take the school bus.

Applying the Zinati factors, the court found it was in the child's best interests to attend school in-person and take the bus, as there was no evidence of unacceptable risk to the child or family members.

However, the court found the father breached the joint custody order by acting unilaterally and ordered him to pay the mother's costs for the contempt motion.

The moving parties, acting as foreign representatives and trustees in bankruptcy, brought a motion for contempt against the responding party for failing to attend an examination as ordered.

The responding party brought a motion for the presiding judge to recuse herself, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the moving parties' submissions regarding the bankrupt's character.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, finding no objective basis for bias.

The court then granted the contempt motion, finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the responding party intentionally failed to comply with a clear and unequivocal order to attend the examination.

The responding party was given 10 days to purge his contempt.

A case management conference was held regarding the respondent's failure to follow court orders in connection with her pending appeal of a contempt judgment.

The respondent did not attend the conference.

The court found that the respondent breached a previous order directing her to inquire about the status of transcripts required for her appeal and to provide the correspondence to the court.

The court ordered the respondent to comply with the previous directions by November 15, 2019, and to explain her non-compliance, warning that failure to do so could result in further contempt proceedings.

The plaintiff and third party moved for contempt of court against the defendants for failing to remove a dock as ordered in a previous trial judgment.

The court heard evidence from a Ministry of Natural Resources official regarding the defendants' efforts to obtain the necessary work permits for the removal.

The court found that the defendants were making genuine efforts to comply with the judgment and navigate the regulatory requirements, and therefore dismissed the contempt motion, ordering the defendants to continue using best efforts to remedy the nuisance.

The applicant mother brought a motion to find the respondent father in contempt of a prior court order requiring his participation in reunification therapy and a section 30 assessment for their son.

The court found the father in contempt of the provisions requiring him to adhere to the therapy agreement and attend sessions, noting his deliberate and willful delay and refusal to cooperate.

The court dismissed the contempt allegations regarding communication with the therapist and payment of the assessor's retainer, as the latter is a payment order not enforceable by contempt under the Family Law Rules.

The father was ordered to pay a $25,000 fine, return the child to the mother, and was sentenced to 30 days imprisonment, which could be reduced or suspended upon compliance with specific conditions.

In a family law motion, the applicant sought findings of contempt relating to alleged breaches of prior court orders concerning property retrieval, vehicle maintenance obligations, and parenting exchange arrangements.

The court found the respondent in contempt for deliberately withholding certain listed household items contrary to a prior order requiring their surrender, but declined to find contempt regarding alleged failure to service a vehicle because the order was ambiguous and primarily required payment of operating expenses.

The court imposed a reduced monetary fine and directed the parties to arrange completion of the property transfer.

Requests to vary parenting transfer arrangements and for reimbursement of vehicle maintenance costs were dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the respondent for breaching provisions of a prior family court order relating to the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) referral, reconciliation counselling, and access logistics.

The court applied the three-part test for civil contempt and found that the respondent wilfully refused to comply with the clear requirement to complete and submit an OCL intake form within 14 days of the order.

Alleged breaches relating to reconciliation counselling and provision of access logistics were not proven to meet the contempt standard.

The court emphasized that contempt is a serious remedy requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt and should be used cautiously in family proceedings.

The respondent was found in contempt only with respect to the OCL intake form requirement, and the penalty phase was adjourned.

Members of a religious corporation brought motions relating to governance disputes within the corporation.

The court considered applications to intervene, the validity of a consent order appointing corporate directors following a mediation process before another judge, alleged breaches of that order, and related procedural matters.

The respondents argued that the consent order appointing directors should be set aside on grounds including lack of a condition precedent and alleged illegality under the Corporations Act.

The court rejected those arguments, holding that the consent order was valid and final, having been agreed to by all parties through counsel and approved through the agreed process.

Injunctive relief was granted restraining certain respondents from interfering with the corporation’s governance and requiring the turnover of corporate property and documents.

The applicant brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against several respondents for failing to comply with a Mareva injunction and subsequent court orders requiring disclosure of financial information and accounting for funds obtained following a tax sale.

The respondents failed to provide sworn financial statements, refused to fully participate in examinations, failed to surrender passports as ordered, and did not produce required documentation tracing the disposition of funds.

The court applied the test for civil contempt and found the orders were clear and unequivocal and that the respondents deliberately failed to comply despite multiple opportunities and a consent order specifying detailed disclosure obligations.

The court concluded the evidence established contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The respondents were found in contempt but were given an opportunity to purge the contempt before sentencing by complying with the outstanding disclosure orders.

A father brought a motion to change an earlier custody order seeking termination or restriction of the mother’s access and also sought a finding of contempt.

The court found that the mother engaged in obsessive conduct attempting to fabricate evidence of abuse against the father, repeatedly made unverified complaints to police and child protection authorities, and violated court‑ordered communication and medical notification requirements.

Evidence including email and online marketplace communications demonstrated that the mother attempted to sell household items while stating she was leaving the country with the child, which the court found supported a plan to abduct the child.

The court rejected the mother’s explanation that her computer had been hacked and found her evidence and that of her supporting witnesses not credible.

Sole custody with the father and supervised access for the mother were maintained, and the mother was found in contempt and placed on probation with behavioural conditions.