Ronald Birkin

Following findings of civil contempt for repeated breaches of court orders arising from a commercial lease dispute, the court determined the appropriate sanction.

The applicant had wilfully breached multiple orders governing access to premises, removal of goods, and payment of heating costs.

Applying Rule 60.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles governing contempt sanctions, the court emphasized deterrence and denunciation where there is a pattern of disregard for court authority.

Given the applicant’s persistent non‑compliance, lack of remorse, and likelihood of continued breaches, the court struck the applicant’s application for relief from forfeiture and awarded substantial indemnity costs.

Additional monetary sanctions were ordered pursuant to a prior consent order.

A landlord brought a motion seeking a finding of civil contempt against a tenant corporation and its principal for alleged breaches of multiple court orders arising from a commercial lease dispute.

The court considered whether the orders were clear and unequivocal, whether the respondents deliberately and wilfully disobeyed them, and whether contempt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found several deliberate breaches, including denying the landlord access to the premises, entering the premises contrary to a court order, removing non‑perishable items when only perishables were permitted, failing to remove perishable goods as ordered, and failing to pay heating costs required by a consent order.

The court declined to find contempt in certain instances where the evidence created reasonable doubt about deliberate breach.

The respondents were found in contempt of multiple orders and the issue of penalty and costs was adjourned.