Contempt of court

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order dismissing her motion to set aside a settlement regarding property in Highland Falls, New York and finding respondents in contempt.

The motion judge had granted the respondents' cross-motion for relief permitting implementation of the settlement terms.

The appellant raised four main grounds of appeal: (1) the motion judge erred in requiring leave to bring the motion; (2) the motion judge erred in rejecting her argument that the Final Order should be set aside due to environmental dumping issues; (3) the motion judge erred in approving a Deed Transfer that created an easement not contemplated by the Final Order; and (4) the motion judge erred in approving a Conservation Easement that was substantially more restrictive than agreed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the motion judge's decision.

The appellant appealed from an order striking his pleadings for deliberate failure to comply with a child support order.

The motion judge had ordered interim child support of $12,365 per month retroactive to January 1, 2018.

The appellant, despite having substantial income, unilaterally reduced payments to $2,365 per month without seeking court approval or appealing the order.

When the respondent brought a motion to strike the pleadings, the motion judge denied the appellant's request for an adjournment and struck the Answer and Claim, finding the conduct flagrant, wilful, and calculated disobedience.

The Court of Appeal upheld the striking order but modified the remedy to allow the appellant to participate in trial proceedings, provided he continued to comply with the child support order.

The moving party sought extensions of time to appeal three orders from the Superior Court: a contempt order dated October 10, 2017, a costs order dated January 26, 2018, and a sentencing order dated September 21, 2018, which struck the moving party's pleadings and allowed the respondent to proceed to an uncontested trial.

The motion judge dismissed the extensions for the first two orders on the basis of abuse of process, given the substantial delays, lack of satisfactory explanation, and the moving party's pattern of non-compliance with court orders and procedural rules.

However, the motion judge granted an extension for the sentencing order due to its severe procedural consequences, and stayed that order pending appeal.

The applicant mother sought retroactive child support from June 24, 2010 to March 1, 2012, enforcement of the parties' separation agreement requiring the respondent father to pay one-half of the child's post-secondary education expenses (undergraduate degree at University of Toronto and graduate degree at University of London), and alternatively, variation of a Final Consent Order dated March 31, 2005.

The mother also brought a motion for contempt against the father for failure to comply with financial disclosure orders.

The court found that the Final Consent Order, which purported to eliminate all ongoing child support when the child was 14 years old, was fundamentally unreasonable and set it aside.

The court determined that the child qualified for support for her graduate degree and ordered the father to contribute $25,000 towards post-secondary education expenses.

The claim for retroactive monthly child support was dismissed.

The contempt motion was dismissed as the court was not satisfied the breach was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed her sentence for contempt of court, imposed for refusing to testify at her father's perjury trial.

The father was charged with perjury for allegedly lying under oath at a previous trial of the appellant's fiancée.

The appellant had been sentenced to one year imprisonment consecutive to time already being served for perjury convictions related to testimony given at the fiancée's earlier trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the sentence was not unfit.

The trustee in bankruptcy appealed a motion judge's decision declining to find the bankrupt in contempt for refusing to execute a power of attorney regarding her interest in Croatian property.

The motion judge instead granted the trustee authority to sign the power of attorney on behalf of the bankrupt, with a minor redaction preventing assignment of powers to third parties.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's discretionary decision, finding no error in prioritizing a practical remedy over a contempt finding, while emphasizing the seriousness of disobeying court orders.

The appellant mother appealed a contempt finding by the motion judge for withholding the children from the respondent father in violation of a parenting schedule.

The motion judge found the mother in contempt and imposed double make-up time as a penalty, which the mother subsequently complied with.

The Court of Appeal upheld the contempt finding, finding no palpable and overriding error.

The appeal regarding the penalty was found to be moot as it had been completed.

The court also upheld the motion judge's continued jurisdiction over the matter in this high-conflict family law case, citing best practice principles.

The respondent brought a motion to change a final order for custody and child support.

The applicant brought a contempt motion alleging the respondent breached a consent order requiring settlement funds to be held in trust.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the respondent could not have known of the order's existence as it was never properly prepared, issued, entered, or served upon him or his civil counsel.

The court noted that while the respondent's conduct was reprehensible—withdrawing approximately $90,000 for personal use while owing child support arrears—the procedural requirements for a contempt finding could not be satisfied.

The motion to change was ordered to proceed on an expedited basis.

The father brought a contempt motion after the mother permanently relocated with their child to New Brunswick in violation of a non-removal court order.

The mother responded with a motion to change seeking permission to relocate, and the father brought a cross-motion to change seeking custody or defined access terms.

The court applied the framework from Gordon v. Goertz and found a material change in circumstances.

After considering all relevant factors, the court determined that the child's best interests lay with remaining in New Brunswick with the mother, who had established a stable life with family support.

The court granted the mother's motion to change, deleted the non-removal clause, and established reasonable access terms for the father.

Although the mother was found in contempt for violating the court order, the court declined to impose jail time or a fine, instead denying costs to the successful party as a penalty for her unilateral action.

The applicant father brought a motion to change an interim access order for his daughter, seeking to expand access from two hours on Saturday to alternate weekends with overnight stays.

The respondent mother had repeatedly failed to comply with prior access orders, resulting in multiple contempt findings and imprisonment.

The court found the mother in contempt for non-compliance with the January 25, 2013 and March 8, 2013 orders.

The court granted a progressively expanding access schedule over a ten-month period, imposed a suspended 30-day imprisonment sanction, and issued a police assistance order to enforce access.

The court also imposed communication restrictions and a restraining order limiting the father's proximity to the mother's residence and workplace.

The father brought a motion for contempt alleging that the mother breached a June 22, 2011 final order by cancelling approximately 30 weekend access visits without good or valid reason, refusing to make up missed weekends, and refusing to provide report cards and authorization for direct contact with schools and medical professionals.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking to transfer the matter to Ottawa, reduce access to once per month, obtain child support disclosure, and obtain permission to travel to Poland with the children.

The court found the mother in contempt of the access order, finding that while some reasons for cancellation were legitimate, most were not, and that the mother had unilaterally allowed her influence regarding the children's activities to override her obligation to comply with the clear terms of the order.

The penalty phase was adjourned to January 2014 to allow the mother an opportunity to purge the contempt.

The applicant brought motions in a family law proceeding seeking to have the respondent found in contempt for failing to comply with prior court orders and to strike the respondent’s Answer for persistent disclosure failures.

The court reviewed a lengthy history of non-compliance with disclosure obligations, unpaid support, and failure to provide proof of compliance with prior orders regarding debts and financial disclosure.

While declining to immediately strike the Answer or make a contempt finding, the court granted an adjournment on strict conditions requiring proof of discharged loans, production of personal and corporate tax returns, updated financial disclosure, and payment toward support arrears.

The court warned that failure to comply with any of the terms could permit the applicant to move without notice to strike the respondent’s Answer.

The applicants sought enforcement of a prior court order requiring production of condominium corporation financial records and pursued contempt proceedings against a corporate director for non‑compliance.

The director delivered additional banking and financial documents and advised that audited financial statements were being prepared by external auditors.

The court found that the respondent had not yet fully purged the contempt order because the disclosure provided did not include all required financial records.

However, the court accepted that steps toward compliance were underway and relieved the director from further personal attendance requirements.

The contempt motion was adjourned to allow completion of the audit and disclosure of supporting documentation, and costs were awarded to the applicants for the appearance.

In contempt proceedings arising from a failure to comply with a prior court order requiring production of financial and accounting records, the court addressed a request for an adjournment of a sentencing hearing for contempt.

The corporate director of the respondent had failed to appear at a previous hearing, resulting in the issuance of a bench warrant.

After appearing with newly retained counsel, the director sought additional time to assemble the required financial documentation and to address missing records.

Although the court expressed concern about repeated adjournments and minimal compliance with prior orders, it concluded that granting a short adjournment would better facilitate production of the required documents and potential purging of the contempt.

The bench warrant was rescinded, the matter adjourned on a peremptory basis, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the applicants.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to have the defendants found in contempt of court for failing to comply with several court orders related to examinations in aid of execution and other litigation obligations.

The defendants argued that their failures were attributable to the conduct and advice of their former solicitor and a disbarred lawyer assisting him.

The court held that while parties are generally responsible for their own conduct in litigation, the circumstances raised sufficient doubt regarding the defendants’ culpable intent.

Given the high onus required to establish contempt of court, the court declined to make a contempt finding.

The court further ordered that there would be no costs of the contempt motion.

The accused was charged with attempting to obstruct or pervert the course of justice in a judicial proceeding by threatening to use his vote, position and influence as a jury member to cause a hung jury irrespective of the evidence at trial.

The accused sent communications to the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Sheriff's office, and a newspaper reporter expressing his intention to deliberately vote to hang any jury on which he served.

The court found that the jury selection process constitutes a judicial proceeding under the Criminal Code.

However, the court acquitted the accused, finding that his actions constituted mere threats to obstruct justice rather than an attempt to do so, as he did not bring his materials to court and had no contact with potential jurors.

The court found the accused was attempting to avoid jury duty rather than to obstruct justice.

The court determined costs following cross-motions arising years after a trial judgment that had found an enforceable agreement for the purchase and sale of shares.

The defendant had unsuccessfully brought a motion for directions and was found in contempt for attempting to alter the terms of the agreement previously confirmed by the court and upheld on appeal.

The successful parties sought substantial indemnity costs, relying on an unaccepted settlement offer and arguing that the defendant had unnecessarily prolonged the litigation.

The court held that the defendant’s continued attempts to revisit the concluded issues and delay completion of the transaction warranted costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

Costs of $12,650 inclusive of fees and disbursements were awarded and ordered deducted from funds payable under the original judgment.

The defendant brought a motion seeking directions for the completion of a share purchase and sale agreement that had been confirmed by a prior trial judgment.

The moving party sought directions regarding tax structure, adjustments related to a claimed capital gains exemption, interest, and other closing mechanics.

The responding parties opposed the motion on the basis that the court was functus officio and brought a cross-motion alleging contempt for failure to comply with the earlier judgment.

The court held that it lacked authority to provide further directions because the judgment had already finally determined the terms of the transaction.

However, the court found the moving party deliberately failed to comply with the judgment beyond a reasonable doubt and was in contempt.

Orders were made requiring completion of the share transfer and authorizing a representative of the successful parties to execute documents if the defendant failed to comply.

In a family law proceeding following separation, the applicant brought a motion for contempt alleging the respondent breached court orders prohibiting communication, requiring mortgage payments, and mandating financial disclosure.

The court applied the three-part test for civil contempt and found the respondent deliberately and wilfully breached a non‑communication order by contacting the applicant directly despite clear court orders.

The court also found the respondent in breach of orders requiring mortgage payments and financial disclosure but declined to make additional findings of contempt for those breaches.

The respondent was ordered to attend court to purge his contempt and was directed to comply with outstanding disclosure and mortgage obligations.

In a family law proceeding, the moving party brought a motion seeking a declaration of contempt after the responding party transferred substantial funds to an offshore account contrary to a prior non-dissipation order.

The court found the order was clear, the transfers were admitted, and the conduct was wilful or at least wilfully blind.

The responding party’s argument that the transfers merely repaid a debt and were done without understanding the order was rejected.

The court held that court orders must be obeyed and that paying a creditor does not justify breaching a preservation order during ongoing support and property claims.

A declaration of contempt was made, and the responding party was given 60 days to purge the contempt by paying the funds into court.