Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: Dish Network LLC v. Ramkissoon, 2011 ONCA 478

Date: 20110624

Docket: C51866 and C51874

Between:

Dish Network LLC, Echostar Techologies LLC, and Nagrastar LLC

Plaintiffs (Respondent in Appeal)

and

Ravindranauth Ramkissoon a.k.a. Ravin Ramkissoon, Ravindranauth Ramkissoon a.k.a. Digital, Ravindranauth Ramkissoon a.k.a. TheDigitalStore, Ravindranauth Ramkissoon c.o.b. as www.thedigitalstore.com, Ravindranauth Ramkissoon c.o.b. www.nfusionteam.com, Ravindranauth Ramkissoon c.o.b. as www.canadasat.com, Ravindranauth Ramkissoon c.o.b. as www.dummychat.com, Ravindranauth Ramkissoon c.o.b. as www.nfusioncanada.com, Ravindranauth Ramkissoon c.o.b. as www.nfusioncanada.ca, Ravindranauth Ramkissoon c.o.b. as www.nfusionline.com, Ravindranauth Ramkissoon c.o.b. as www.nfusionrepair.com, Ravindranauth Ramkissoon c.o.b. as www.nfusionwarrantycenter.com, Ravindranauth Ramkissoon c.o.b. as www.nfusiondepo.com, Ravindranauth Ramkissoon c.o.b. as www.nuvenio.ca, Ravindranauth Ramkissoon c.o.b. as Digital R Us, Anandanauth Ramkissoon a.k.a. Anthony Ramkissoon, Rosaline Ramkissoon, Digital Store Inc., E-Canada Solutions Inc., N-Fusion Canada Inc., 7016581 Canada Limited, John Doe, Jane Doe and other persons unknown who have conspired with the named Defendants

Defendants (Appellant)

Before: Simmons, Armstrong and Rouleau JJ.A.

Counsel:

Sharanjit Padda, for the appellant

Denise L. Bambrough, for the respondents

Heard and endorsed: June 24, 2011

On appeal from the order of Justice Peter Cumming of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 23, 2010.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] We view the actions of the appellants in refusing to comply with the Second Anton Pillar order as quite serious. Their conduct was both prejudicial to the respondents and an affront to the court. In our view, the sentences of four months’ imprisonment for Mr. Ramkissoon, two months’ imprisonment for Mrs. Ramkissoon and the order requiring that they pay the respondents' costs were fit sentences when imposed.

[2] That said, the appellants have filed fresh evidence indicating they have now purged their contempt to the extent that they are able to do so, setting out their circumstances and expressing their remorse to the court. Importantly, the respondents do not oppose the motion to introduce fresh evidence or the appeal.

[3] In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the sentence of imprisonment imposed on Mr. Ramkissoon is varied to time served (64 days); and the sentence of imprisonment imposed on Mrs. Ramkissoon is vacated. The order that the appellants pay the respondents costs shall remain in full force and effect.

No order as to costs of the appeal.