M. Edmiston

Following earlier findings of contempt for breaching a non‑communication order in a matrimonial proceeding, the court considered whether the respondent had purged his contempt and what sanctions should follow.

The respondent admitted to repeated breaches of orders prohibiting communication with his spouse, including indirect communication through a child and threatening text messages after the contempt finding.

Evidence also showed he had failed to keep the matrimonial home mortgage in good standing while continuing significant discretionary spending.

The court accepted, with hesitation, that the respondent acknowledged responsibility and intended to comply with future orders.

The court found the contempt purged but imposed remedial conditions including a written apology, ongoing disclosure regarding a business venture, continued mortgage compliance, and substantial indemnity costs.

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.