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 mother was previously found in contempt for intentionally breaching parenting orders.

The penalty phase was adjourned to allow her to purge her contempt.

Instead of complying, the mother absconded with the child to Jamaica, missing the trial where the father was granted sole decision-making and residence.

The mother was apprehended in Jamaica and faces extradition, while the child was returned to the father.

The court found the mother's actions demonstrated a flagrant disregard for court orders with no mitigating factors.

The court sentenced the mother to the maximum penalty of 90 days incarceration.

The applicants moved to hold the respondent, a former condominium board president, in contempt of court for failing to comply with a consent order.

The respondent had agreed to resign, turn over corporate email access, and swear a statutory declaration regarding corporate funds, but failed to do so timely or truthfully.

The court declined to make a contempt finding, noting it is a remedy of last resort.

Instead, the court enforced the consent order's liquidated damages clause of $125,000 for non-compliance and vested the respondent's interest in the corporate email account in the condominium corporation.

The applicant brought a motion for a penalty after the respondent estate trustee failed to purge her contempt for ignoring a court order to file and pass her accounts.

The respondent had evaded service and ignored multiple court orders for over four and a half years.

The court found no mitigating factors and ordered the respondent to pay a $20,000 fine within 60 days, failing which she would serve a seven-day jail sentence.

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 respondent mother brought a motion to find the applicant father in contempt of a 2013 joint custody order that required him to drive their two children to her home for weekend access.

The father unilaterally stopped driving the children, reducing the mother's access from three weekends a month to alternate weekends, and blamed the children's reluctance.

The court found the father in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt, noting he failed to exercise parental authority to ensure compliance and deliberately undermined the mother's relationship with the children.

To remedy the contempt and serve the children's best interests, the court varied the order, granting the mother sole custody and primary residence.

The plaintiff brought a motion to find the defendant in contempt for failing to comply with a prior court order requiring a sworn statement of worldwide assets and attendance at an examination.

The underlying action involved an alleged $1.4 million fraud.

The defendant sought an adjournment to retain counsel, which the court denied as a blatant delay tactic, noting the defendant had seven months to do so.

The court found the defendant in contempt, as he had actual knowledge of the clear and unequivocal order and deliberately disobeyed it.

A sentencing hearing was scheduled, with an opportunity provided to purge the contempt.

The appellant appealed a finding of contempt and a sentence of six months' house arrest for breaching a 2006 consent order prohibiting him from practicing chiropractic or using the title of chiropractor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the contempt finding, noting the appellant had consented to proceed without viva voce evidence and there was overwhelming evidence of his breach.

The court also upheld the sentence, finding the motion judge properly considered the principle of least restrictive sanction given the appellant's ongoing defiance and the need for public protection.

The committal order was varied on consent to allow the appellant to show cause before incarceration.

The applicant brought a family law contempt motion alleging breach of prior orders requiring interim support, mortgage and household expense payments, provision of a credit card for gas, and cooperation in listing the matrimonial home for sale.

The court held that the monetary obligations, including the gas credit card arrangement, were payment orders within the meaning of the Family Law Rules and therefore could not be enforced by contempt.

As to the non-monetary provisions relating to sale preparation and listing of the home, the competing affidavit record did not establish wilful breach beyond a reasonable doubt.

The contempt motion was dismissed.

The moving party sought to stay a final divorce order while remaining in contempt of multiple Ontario court orders requiring her to return the parties' child from Poland to Canada.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to prohibit the moving party from proceeding until her contempt was purged.

The Court of Appeal granted the cross-motion, exercising its discretion to refuse to hear the moving party's request for a stay because doing so while she remained in contempt of closely connected child custody orders would be manifestly unjust and an abuse of process.

The respondents, who had previously been found in contempt of court and sentenced, sought an adjournment of their upcoming compliance and sentencing hearing.

They requested the adjournment to allow time to seek a stay pending appeal in the Court of Appeal and to accommodate a religious holiday.

The applicant opposed the adjournment.

The court dismissed the motion for an adjournment, noting the urgency of determining compliance with the court's orders and the respondents' delay in seeking a stay.

Following an appeal that upheld a contempt finding against a condominium board but varied the sanction, the Court of Appeal addressed the costs of the underlying contempt motion.

The motion judge had awarded $109,598 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The Court of Appeal found that the board's conduct, while contemptuous, did not warrant elevated costs as it was not motivated by personal gain or vengeance.

The costs award was reduced to $35,000 on a partial indemnity scale, payable jointly and severally by the condominium corporation and the individual board members.

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 appellant challenged a contempt order arising from non-payment of a lump-sum support-related amount ordered in dependant support proceedings under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The Court of Appeal held that rules 60.05 and 60.11(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure permit contempt enforcement only for orders requiring an act other than the payment of money, and that this includes support orders.

The court rejected any purported family law exception and held that the Rules displaced any inherent jurisdiction to use contempt for money judgments in proceedings governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The contempt order was set aside and the motion for contempt was dismissed.