Contempt of court

Four brothers who equally owned a complex real estate development partnership experienced a complete breakdown in their business relationship, leading to a court-ordered wind-up and sale of the business.

Two brothers appealed the trial judge's decision to exclude a specific real estate transaction from the wind-up order, arguing breach of fiduciary duty.

The other two brothers appealed a provision in the judgment requiring them to certify compliance with the wind-up and disclosure orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals regarding the excluded transaction, deferring to the trial judge's factual findings that it was conducted outside the partnership.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the certification provision, striking it on the basis that requiring certification of vague obligations in a highly hostile environment would unfairly expose the parties to unwarranted contempt proceedings.

The respondent father brought a motion for contempt against the applicant mother, alleging she breached two final orders regarding joint decision-making and alternating weekly parenting time.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the decision-making order, finding it was not clear and unequivocal.

Regarding the parenting time order, the court found the mother deliberately and wilfully breached the order by failing to take concrete steps to require the 14-year-old child to visit his father.

However, the court declined to exercise its discretion to find her in contempt, noting the father had alternate adequate remedies available and a contempt finding would not advance the child's best interests.

The applicant mother brought a contempt motion against the respondent father for allegedly breaching three previous court orders regarding medical disclosure and a section 30 assessment.

The father brought a cross-motion alleging the mother breached orders by unilaterally suspending his parenting time.

The court found the father in contempt of the 2021 order for obstructing the section 30 assessment by demanding changes to the assessor's retainer agreement.

The court found the mother in breach of the 2019 order for engaging in self-help by suspending parenting time without evidence of danger to the child.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and the right to choose the assessor, ordered the father to pay the $12,000 retainer, and ordered the immediate reinstatement of the father's parenting time.

The moving party brought a motion under Rule 60.11(8) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to vary the sentences imposed on him for contempt of court, which originally totaled 18 to 21 months.

The court found that the moving party had purged his contempt regarding one order by completing an examination in aid of execution, and had made good faith efforts to pay a settlement amount, paying $472,000.

Acknowledging these changed circumstances, the court reduced the sentences for several breaches, resulting in a new global consecutive sentence of 14 months imprisonment.

The property owner's dwelling was damaged by fire, leading the municipality to issue a demolition order.

The owner previously obtained a consent order staying the demolition on the condition that she take specific steps to repair the property within six months.

After the owner failed to take any of the required steps for over 18 months, the municipality brought a motion for an order to demolish the property and to find the owner in contempt.

The court granted the motion, ordering the demolition of the property and finding the owner in contempt of the previous order, with the penalty phase adjourned.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking the incarceration of the defendant for contempt of court, alleging he failed to comply with costs orders and failed to complete 250 hours of court-ordered community service.

The court found that the defendant had only proven completion of 44 hours and that his evidence regarding the remaining hours was highly suspicious.

However, the court concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate a wilful intention to mislead sufficient to justify incarceration.

The defendant was ordered to complete the remaining 206 hours of community service by a specified date.

The applicant brought a motion to change a final order to terminate spousal support, citing a material change in circumstances due to his job loss and the respondent's increased income.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for retroactive section 7 expenses for the children's post-secondary education and a motion for contempt regarding the applicant's failure to maintain life insurance.

The court found a material change in circumstances and terminated spousal support.

The court dismissed the claim for retroactive section 7 expenses due to the respondent's significant delay and the children's ability to fund their own education.

The contempt motion was also dismissed because the original order lacked a specific amount for the life insurance policy.

In the context of a family law dispute, the applicant brought a contempt motion against the respondent's former lawyers for allegedly receiving funds in breach of a Mareva injunction.

Both the applicant and the alleged contemnors brought motions for documentary production.

The court held that because contempt is a quasi-criminal proceeding, the alleged contemnors are not subject to the automatic disclosure obligations of the Rules of Civil Procedure and have a right against self-incrimination.

The court dismissed the applicant's request for an affidavit of documents but granted a preservation order against the lawyers.

The court also ordered the applicant to produce relevant communications to the alleged contemnors to allow them to make full answer and defence.

The plaintiff brought a motion to find the defendant, a former employee, in contempt of an interlocutory injunction prohibiting him from soliciting clients or disclosing confidential information.

The plaintiff relied on affidavits containing hearsay evidence regarding the defendant's alleged solicitation attempts.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that under Rule 60.11(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, hearsay evidence is inadmissible on a contentious point in a contempt motion.

The plaintiff failed to meet the strict burden of proving contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The respondent was successful on a motion and sought costs.

The court noted a history of delay by the applicant and previous findings of contempt of court.

The court fixed costs at 70% of substantial indemnity, ordering the applicant to pay $11,190.82 personally, rather than out of the estate.

The moving parties brought a motion alleging the responding party was in contempt of a court order establishing a remediation timetable for zoning variances.

Although the responding party technically breached the order by applying for different variances than those specified, the court found that post-order discussions between the responding party and the Chief Building Official caused confusion.

The court halted the contempt hearing, dismissed the motion, and directed the parties to discuss a way forward.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion to find the respondent in contempt of court for failing to direct his pension to the Family Responsibility Office for child support arrears.

The motion judge found it impossible to determine if the respondent had failed to direct the payment, and concluded the order was a payment order not enforceable by contempt.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent wilfully breached the clear terms of the order, despite his reprehensible conduct in cashing out the pension.

The applicant brought a motion to find the respondent in contempt for failing to comply with a prior court order requiring him to sign a listing agreement for the sale of their jointly owned property.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to consolidate the civil partition action with a family law application he commenced in another jurisdiction.

The court applied the three-pronged test for contempt and found the respondent deliberately breached the clear and unequivocal order beyond a reasonable doubt, though he purged his contempt by signing the agreement in court.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding the two actions dealt with distinct issues and consolidation would cause unfair delay and expense.

The mother brought a motion to determine the primary residence of the parties' two children and for the penalty phase of a contempt finding against the father.

The father had previously been found in contempt for failing to release the children for access, and he brought a preliminary motion requesting the judge recuse himself due to reasonable apprehension of bias arising from adverse credibility findings in the contempt decision.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, holding that prior adverse credibility findings do not inherently create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

On the contempt penalty, the court ordered the father to pay $3,000 in costs on a full recovery basis due to his bad faith.

Regarding primary residence, the court found it in the children's best interests to reside with the mother pending final resolution, citing the father's history of thwarting access and concerns about his ability to promote a positive environment.

The respondent father brought motions to find the applicant mother in contempt of court for breaching a temporary order prohibiting her from moving the children out of Simcoe County, and to restrain her from moving to Niagara Falls pending a motion to change.

The court found the mother in contempt for wilfully disobeying the order, but imposed no penalty as she had purged her contempt by returning the children.

The court dismissed the motion to restrain the move, finding that the mother's relocation to Niagara Falls was in the best interests of the children due to safety, housing, and family support factors.

The respondent father brought motions to find the applicant mother in contempt of court for breaching a temporary order prohibiting her from moving the children out of Simcoe County, and to restrain her from moving to Niagara Falls pending a motion to change.

The court found the mother in contempt for wilfully disobeying the order, but imposed no penalty as she had purged her contempt by returning the children.

The court dismissed the motion to restrain the move, finding that the mother's relocation to Niagara Falls was in the best interests of the children, provided she facilitate the father's access.

The appellant appealed a finding of contempt of court and a sentence of 20 days' imprisonment for breaching an injunction.

The injunction prohibited the appellant from releasing a disparaging press release containing confidential business information and ordered her to provide a list of persons to whom she had disclosed the information.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had knowingly and deliberately breached both the letter and spirit of the injunction by failing to instruct her agent to halt the distribution of the press release and by refusing to provide the required list.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as no error in principle was demonstrated.

The applicant brought a motion to find the respondent in contempt of court for failing to comply with a prior consent order requiring him to hold proceeds from the sale of his insurance business in trust.

The respondent received a $100,000 installment early but failed to place it in trust, instead paying half to the applicant toward equalization and keeping the rest.

The court rejected the respondent's arguments that the order was a payment order exempt from contempt proceedings or that the terms were vague.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the order and found him in contempt.

The plaintiffs brought an action against their uncle, the sole executor and trustee of their late father's estate, for breach of fiduciary duty.

The defendant failed to administer the estate, squandered assets, and repeatedly ignored court orders to pass accounts, resulting in multiple contempt findings and a brief imprisonment.

After the defendant was noted in default, the plaintiffs brought a motion for judgment.

The court found the defendant's conduct to be an egregious breach of fiduciary duty and awarded damages for the value of the estate, reimbursement of legal fees, and $100,000 in punitive damages, along with substantial indemnity costs.

The applicant step-mother sought joint custody and extensive access to her nine-year-old step-daughter following her separation from the respondent father.

The biological parents, who shared custody, opposed the application and sought to limit access, citing the child's resistance and the high conflict between the parties.

The court found that all three adults contributed to the deterioration of the child's relationship with the applicant.

The court denied joint custody but ordered limited, graduated access, conditional on all parties attending mandatory counseling to repair the relationship.

The respondent father was also found in contempt for failing to facilitate court-ordered access.

Additionally, the court resolved child support for the parties' biological child based on current income and ordered the applicant to remove the respondent from a joint line of credit.