Matt Taft

The defendant was previously found in civil contempt for dishonesty, concealing assets, and breaching a Mareva injunction.

Having already served a 90-day sentence for a prior contempt finding, the court considered the appropriate sanction for this subsequent contempt.

Emphasizing that civil contempt aims at coercion rather than punishment, and noting the defendant's expressed remorse and ongoing counselling, the court declined to impose further immediate incarceration.

Instead, the court ordered the defendant to continue weekly counselling for two months and pay a $10,000 fine within 60 days, failing which a 90-day term of imprisonment would be imposed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for contempt against the defendant for repeatedly breaching a Mareva injunction and subsequent court orders freezing his assets.

The court found that the defendant had flagrantly and serially violated the orders by operating undisclosed bank accounts, cashing cheques at Money Mart, and continuing to conduct business and manage properties through corporate fronts.

Given the scale and audacity of the deception, the court imposed a rare custodial sentence of 90 days imprisonment for the initial contempt and found the defendant in further contempt of subsequent orders, with the penalty for the further contempt to be determined at a later date.

The defendants in a residential construction dispute brought a motion for leave to issue a third party claim against a subcontractor and to adjourn the impending trial.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that a delay would cause them undue prejudice as they were living in a trailer with a toddler and expecting another child, while still paying a mortgage on their burnt-down house.

The court denied the motion, finding that the prejudice to the plaintiffs went well beyond mere inconvenience and outweighed the desirability of avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings, especially given the defendants' underwhelming explanation for the late request.