COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Ceridian Canada Ltd. v. Azeezodeen, 2014 ONCA 656

DATE: 20140924

DOCKET: C59100

Juriansz, LaForme and Lauwers JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Ceridian Canada Ltd. and Pendylum Inc.

Plaintiffs/Respondents

and

Farida Azeezodeen

Defendant/Appellant

Farida Azeezodeen, acting in person

Ryan Cookson, for the respondents

Heard and released orally: September 15, 2014

On appeal from the order of Justice Edward P. Belobaba of the Superior Court of Justice, dated July 15, 2014.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] Ms. Azeezodeen appeals from the order of Belobaba J. finding her in contempt of court for breach of an injunction. She also appeals the corresponding sentence of 20 days’ imprisonment to be served on weekends.

[2] Ms. Azeezodeen was an independent contractor with the respondent company, Pendylum Inc. (“Pendylum”), and was subcontracted to work with the respondent company, Ceridian Canada Ltd. (“Ceridian”).

[3] After being terminated by Pendylum for refusing to undergo a background check, Ms. Azeezodeen embarked on an email campaign against the respondents, which culminated in threats the motion judge described as “akin to extortion”. Ms. Azeezodeen told Ceridian that if it did not settle and pay her a significant sum of money by a certain date, she would issue a long and detailed press release disclosing its confidential business methods and disparaging the company’s business reputation.

[4] On May 9, 2014, Ceridian obtained a five-day ex-parte injunction against Ms. Azeezodeen. On May 14, after notice was given to Ms. Azeezodeen, the matter was returned before the motion judge, who extended the injunction.

[5] Paragraph 7 of the injunction prohibited Ms. Azeezodeen or anyone acting on her behalf from releasing the press release. Paragraph 5 of the injunction ordered her to provide the respondents with the list of persons to whom she had disclosed the information. On the contempt motion, the motion judge found beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Azeezodeen had knowingly and deliberately breached these paragraphs of the order.

[6] The bulk of Ms. Azeezodeen’s argument, both before the motion judge and in her written material on appeal, is that the original injunction should not have been granted in the first place. We explained to her, as did the motion judge, that it is not a defence to contempt proceedings to attack the breached court order as incorrectly made. A Superior Court order, even one thought to be incorrect, must be obeyed until it is set aside. We did not permit Ms. Azeezodeen to make these arguments orally because they are irrelevant.

[7] In her defence, Ms. Azeezodeen focuses narrowly on the wording of the order. She points out that she was ordered not to “release” the press release and to provide a list of persons to whom she “has disclosed” the information. She submits that she was not ordered to “retract” or “withdraw” the press release, the order applies only to persons to whom she had already communicated information at the time the order was made, and the order did not require her to provide the list of names “immediately”.

[8] We reject this formalistic interpretation of the injunction. One must comply with both the letter and spirit of an injunction. The intent of the injunction was clear and had to be applied to the circumstances as they arose. Though issued at a moment in time, the injunction was, as the motion judge pointed out, a continuing one. On the evidence, Ms. Azeezodeen was well aware of the urgency of the situation and sought to parlay that urgency into a financial settlement rather than complying with the order.

[9] Ms. Azeezodeen submits the injunction came to her attention at about 12:30 p.m. on May 10. She argues she had already sent the press release to Google News and paid the $99 fee for its distribution at 11:50 a.m.

[10] However, Ms. Azeezodeen admits that Google News was her agent and acknowledges the press release was not circulated until May 13. Moreover, her email to Ceridian dated May 10 demonstrates that she knew Google News had not yet distributed the release and would not distribute it until at least May 12. The email also shows she knew she could attempt to instruct Google News to put a hold on the distribution.

[11] Ms. Azeezodeen admits she made no effort to instruct Google News not to distribute the release after learning of the injunction at 12:30 p.m. on May 10. The release was eventually widely distributed on Tuesday May 13. In our view, the motion judge had an ample basis for finding she had breached the letter and spirit of para. 7 of his order.

[12] In regard to para. 5 of the order, the motion judge found that Ms. Azeezodeen did not genuinely believe her only obligation was to provide a list of persons to whom she had already communicated the information before the May 9 order. He observed that she was otherwise an intelligent and articulate individual and that she would have no difficulty understanding both the language of the order and its overall intent. We agree. Ms. Azeezodeen showed contempt for the court by refusing to provide a list of persons to whom she subsequently disclosed the information.

[13] The appeal of the finding of contempt is dismissed.

[14] As for the sentence appeal, Ms. Azeezodeen has not demonstrated any error of principle in the motion judge’s reasoning or that the sentence he imposed is not fit. The appeal against sentence is dismissed as well.

[15] Costs in favour of the respondent, Ceridian, are fixed in the amount of $6,600.00, all inclusive.

“R.G. Juriansz J.A.”

“H.S. LaForme J.A.”

“P. Lauwers J.A.”