Contempt of court

The Plaintiffs moved to strike the Defendants' Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for non-compliance with a prior contempt order, which required payment of a fine and costs.

The court found the Defendants' failure to comply was deliberate and their explanations for non-payment were not credible.

Applying the factors from *Falcon Lumber* and principles from *Rana v. Unifund Assurance Company*, the court determined that striking the pleadings was necessary to uphold court orders and ensure the fair administration of justice, given the Defendants' pattern of non-compliance and attempts to renegotiate orders.

Joao Guimaraes was found in contempt of court for refusing to testify as a Crown witness at a preliminary inquiry.

Despite being cautioned, he repeatedly refused to answer questions, citing fear for his safety.

At the subsequent contempt hearing, he did testify and answered all questions.

The court considered the seriousness of contempt, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, but also noted mitigating factors: Guimaraes' youth (23), lack of prior record, genuine fear, and the limited impact of his refusal on the preliminary hearing's outcome.

He had also been acquitted of the underlying firearms charges and had served 40 days (credited as 60 days) in pre-sentence custody for the contempt.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with six months of probation, finding the pre-sentence custody sufficient accountability given the unique circumstances.

The respondent, a lawyer, was convicted of contempt of court for failing to comply with an order requiring him to answer questions and fulfill undertakings regarding the administration of his mother's estate.

After five years of non-compliance, which the court characterized as a callous disregard for its authority, the court imposed a sentence of 5 days in gaol, a $5,000 fine, an order preventing further steps in the application until compliance, and substantial indemnity costs of $14,925 to the applicants.

This appeal concerned a contempt finding from the Superior Court of Justice.

Based on a settlement reached by the parties, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part.

The requirement for an apology letter, as stipulated in the original order, was set aside.

Instead, the appellant was ordered to pay a $1,000 fine to the Minister of Finance.

No costs were awarded for the appeal.

The appellant appealed an order finding him in contempt and dismissing his action for persistently refusing to attend court-ordered medical examinations in Toronto.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by not treating contempt as a last resort and by failing to accept his legitimate excuse for non-compliance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision to find the appellant in contempt and to dismiss the action, emphasizing the appellant's deliberate non-compliance and the futility of further opportunities to comply.

This appeal concerned a property zoned agricultural, where the Estate Trustees sought a declaration for legal non-conforming use for commercial purposes, including outdoor storage of vehicles and equipment.

The application judge dismissed the declaration, finding the uses were not lawful under the relevant zoning by-law.

The appellants also sought leave to appeal the application judge's refusal to award them costs for a successful contempt motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the declaration, affirming that the commercial activities were not lawful non-conforming uses.

It also granted leave to appeal the costs issue but dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's discretionary decision on costs.

The respondent father sought a contempt finding against the applicant mother for alleged breaches of his virtual and in-person parenting time, and also sought to set aside a prior court order requiring him to seek leave for future motions.

The court granted leave for the contempt motion but ultimately declined to find the mother in contempt, instead issuing a remedial order to clarify and enforce virtual parenting time.

The court dismissed the father's request to set aside the prior order, affirming the judge's case management powers given the history of litigation.

The respondent father brought a contempt motion against the applicant mother for alleged breaches of a final order concerning shared parenting, non-disparagement, and polite communication.

The mother admitted to not facilitating the parenting schedule, citing the children's resistance due to the father's behaviour, and unilaterally ceased communication.

The court found the mother intentionally breached the parenting and communication terms of the order.

However, exercising its discretion, the court declined to make a formal finding of contempt, noting that contempt is a remedy of last resort.

Instead, given that a temporary consent order for a gradual increase in the father's parenting time had already been made, the court converted the contempt motion into an enforcement motion, emphasizing the mother's obligation to comply with court orders and apply parental authority.

The appellant, Feng Wang, appealed an endorsement from the Superior Court of Justice which dismissed his allegations of immigration fraud, theft, and contempt against the respondent, Min Li, and her lawyer.

The motion judge found Wang's allegations baseless and vexatious, and ordered him to pay costs.

Min Li brought a motion to quash Wang's appeal.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash, finding the appeal constituted an abuse of process as it sought to re-litigate factual findings and lacked legal merit.

The court also noted it lacked jurisdiction as the underlying order was interlocutory, not final, given ongoing proceedings.

Hong Lam, a former mutual fund representative, brought a motion to set aside a Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada (MFDA) Hearing Panel Order, which had been filed as a Superior Court Order under the amended s. 151 of the Securities Act.

Lam argued the amendment should not apply retrospectively to his pre-enactment conduct and that it impacted his substantive rights.

The MFDA argued it was an immediate application to an ongoing situation or, alternatively, a procedural change.

The MFDA also brought a cross-motion for contempt, alleging Lam concealed property during an examination in aid of execution.

The court dismissed Lam's motion, finding that s. 151 applied immediately to the filing of the Hearing Panel decision, which occurred after the amendment, and was procedural in nature.

The court also dismissed the MFDA's cross-motion for contempt, finding that the MFDA failed to prove concealment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendants brought a motion seeking to find the non-party Robert Bortolon in contempt of court, or alternatively, to expunge the initial statement of claim.

The motion for contempt was dismissed.

The alternative motion to expunge the statement of claim, which was opposed by the plaintiff, 1947755 Ontario Ltd., was also dismissed.

The court's decision was based on a combined evidentiary record from this motion and a related summary judgment motion, both addressing the issue of who was in control of the plaintiff corporation as of February 2017.

The mother was found in contempt of prior parenting orders, leading to the father being deprived of access.

The court imposed a $5,000 penalty on the mother and continued a temporary order placing the child in the father's primary care with specific parenting time for the mother.

The court also addressed an urgent motion to change parenting arrangements, finding jurisdiction to make temporary orders in the child's best interests, and requested a section 112 investigation by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The child's stated wishes were given little weight due to concerns about independence and potential influence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard motions for leave to intervene from three public interest organizations (1492 Windsor Law Coalition, Aboriginal Legal Services, and Canadian Civil Liberties Association) in an appeal concerning the striking of an Indigenous appellant's pleadings and a substantial costs award in an injunction proceeding related to a land dispute.

The motions judge had found the appellant in contempt of court.

The Court dismissed all motions for intervention, finding that 1492 WLC and ALS's submissions inappropriately expanded the legal issues on appeal by focusing on injunctions, and CCLA's submissions largely overlapped with the appellant's arguments.

The court concluded that the appellant could adequately address the Indigenous perspective.

No costs were awarded against the proposed interveners.

The appellant mother appealed from contempt findings and sanctions for breaching a parenting order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the mother intentionally breached the order in four respects.

However, the Court found that the motion judge erred by failing to consider discretionary factors, specifically whether a contempt finding was a remedy of last resort and alternative enforcement options, despite properly considering the child's best interests.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the contempt findings and sanctions, replacing them with declarations that the mother intentionally breached the parenting order.

No costs were awarded.

K.R. appealed an order finding her in contempt of court for allegedly violating a temporary order concerning supervised visits for her child with the father.

The original order granted Valoris discretion to remove supervision if no longer necessary.

K.R. refused to allow visits at the father's home, insisting they remain at Valoris's office due to concerns about the child's behaviour.

The Court of Appeal found the original order insufficiently clear regarding visit location or K.R.'s obligation to support a gradual transition plan.

It also noted that Valoris had not yet made a final decision to remove supervision.

The court emphasized the need for clear orders in contempt proceedings and the importance of considering the child's best interests and less severe remedies in family law disputes.

The appeal was allowed, the contempt order quashed, and the contempt motion dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings due to his persistent failure to comply with four court orders for financial disclosure.

The court reviewed the procedural history, the respondent's inconsistent financial statements, and the materiality of the undisclosed information.

While acknowledging the respondent's efforts were piecemeal and his non-compliance was not entirely wilful, the court found the undisclosed information crucial for advancing the applicant's claims.

Instead of immediately striking pleadings, the court imposed strict disclosure requirements, ordered the respondent to obtain expert valuations for his corporate interests and Iranian land, produce specific corporate and international bank documentation, and pay outstanding costs.

The respondent was also precluded from taking further steps without leave and his claims were stayed until compliance.

The plaintiff moved to restore its action to the trial list under Rule 48.11, while the defendant cross-moved to dismiss the action for delay under Rule 24.01.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the significant delay in prosecuting the action since its inception in 2012, and also failed to demonstrate that the defendant would not suffer non-compensable prejudice if the action were restored.

The court drew an adverse inference from the plaintiff's reliance on lawyer affidavits rather than a deponent with direct personal knowledge.

Given the plaintiff's history of contempt findings and failure to pay costs in related litigation, the court concluded the plaintiff lacked good faith in prosecuting the action.

Consequently, the plaintiff's motion was dismissed, and the defendant's motion to dismiss the action for delay was granted, with an order to discharge the certificate of pending litigation.

This motion concerned a plaintiff's application to find a defendant in contempt of court for breaching a prior permanent injunction against defamation.

The defendant, who had previously engaged in a relentless and malicious online campaign against the plaintiff, continued to publish defamatory statements despite a court order.

The court found the defendant guilty of contempt, emphasizing that the prior order was clear and unequivocal, and the defendant had actual knowledge and intentionally breached it.

The court also provided directions for the defendant to purge his contempt, including apologizing and removing all offending online content.

Additionally, the decision addressed issues related to the defendant's examination in aid of execution, providing clear instructions for compliance and adjourning the request to examine the defendant's spouse.

This is a sentencing ruling following a finding that the Applicant father was in contempt for failing to facilitate access between the parties' 11-year-old son and the Respondent mother.

The court considered the principles of contempt sentencing in family law, aiming for remedial and punitive outcomes while prioritizing the child's best interests.

The court ordered make-up access for the child with the Respondent mother, to continue until in-person school classes resume, and a monetary penalty of $5,000.00, along with costs.

The court balanced the need to enforce court orders and punish contempt against the child's stability, particularly regarding schooling.

The respondent, D.C., brought two motions: one for contempt against the applicant, R.E., and another seeking an order for their children to engage in remote learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The contempt motion alleged R.E. failed to communicate on health/well-being issues and breached access terms.

The court dismissed both motions.

For contempt, the court found D.C. failed to prove wilful breach beyond a reasonable doubt, noting communication difficulties were mutual and R.E.'s access mistake was accidental and offered to be remedied.

For the remote learning motion, the court deferred to the government's assessment of school attendance risks, finding no specific evidence that in-person schooling was contrary to the children's best interests.