Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: December 8, 2017

Docket: C62025, C63795, C64461

Panel: Hoy A.C.J.O., Doherty and Feldman JJ.A.

Between

GM Textiles Inc., Gurdev Singh Grewal and Mohinder Singh Matharoo

Respondents

and

Fateh Singh Sidhu, also known as Fateh Sidhu, 2119509 Ontario Corp., operating as "Popeyes", 2121325 Ontario Limited, operating as "Popeyes", 2209385 Ontario Ltd., operating as "Popeyes", 2244485 Ontario Ltd., operating as "Popeyes", 2178548 Ontario Inc., operating as "Popeyes", 2136630 Ontario Ltd., operating as "Popeyes", 2165077 Ontario Corp., operating as "Popeyes", 2168124 Ontario Inc., operating as "Popeyes", Ar-Raheem Foods Inc., and Ar-Razzaaq Foods Inc.

Appellants

Counsel

James Lockyer, for the appellants

Symon Zucker and Melvyn L. Solmon, for the respondents

Heard and Released Orally

December 5, 2017

On Appeal From

Order of Justice Robert B. Reid of the Superior Court of Justice, dated March 23, 2016.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The motion judge made a finding of civil contempt against the appellant as a result of numerous failures to comply with multiple terms of six court orders arising out of civil proceedings. He imposed six consecutive sentences for the various findings of civil contempt, for a total global sentence of 21 months.

[2] The appellant subsequently moved pursuant to r. 60.11(8) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to vary the sentences imposed. The motion judge found that the appellant had purged his contempt of one of the orders, to the extent possible, by providing answers to written questions and by signing an authorization that would permit the respondents to have access to his tax return information. The motion judge also found that, following the sentencing decision, the appellant had shown good faith by entering into a settlement to pay $872,000 to the respondent by a certain date and, while he was unable to pay the full amount, he had paid $472,000 to the respondent. As a result, the motion judge reduced five of the six consecutive sentences that he had imposed, resulting in a reduced global sentence of 14 months.

[3] The appellant argues that the motion judge erred in principle on the sentence review. In his view, the motion judge took too narrow a view of the permitted scope of a review under r. 60.11(8). In particular, he argues that the motion judge considered that he could not revisit his earlier determination that the sentences imposed should be served consecutively rather than concurrently, and that error affected the global sentence he imposed on the motion to vary.

[4] While we agree that r. 60.11(8) is broad enough to permit a motion judge to convert consecutive sentences to concurrent sentences, if appropriate having regard to the fresh evidence on the motion to vary, we do not agree that the motion judge erred in principle. In our view, reading his decision as a whole, the motion judge was of a view that consecutive sentences remained appropriate. Further, we are not persuaded that either the extent of the variation or the resulting reduced sentence imposed was manifestly unfit.

[5] However, since the appellant's most recent attendance before the motion judge, the appellant has paid further funds to the respondent. On the basis of these further good faith, albeit relatively modest, payments, some adjustment of sentence is warranted.

[6] We accordingly reduce the global sentence from 14 months to 12 months.

"Alexandra Hoy A.C.J.O."

"Doherty J.A."

"K. Feldman J.A."