Roy E. Stephenson

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order finding them in continued contempt of a previous court order that prohibited them from dispensing prescription eyewear without valid prescriptions.

The motion judge had imposed a fine of $50,000 per day, totaling $16,000,000.

On appeal, the appellants argued they were denied procedural fairness, that the motion judge erred in relying on evidence regarding franchisees, and that the penalty was excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants had ample opportunity to respond to the allegations but made a tactical decision not to, that the evidentiary inferences were open to the motion judge, and that the massive fine was justified by the brazen and ongoing nature of the contempt.

The appellants, an optician and his associated companies, appealed a finding of contempt and a $1 million fine for flagrantly breaching a court order.

The underlying order prohibited them from prescribing and dispensing corrective lenses without a prescription from an optometrist or physician.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the notice of application was adequate, the self-represented appellant received a fair hearing, and the consolidated hearing on liability and penalty did not vitiate the contempt finding.

The $1 million fine was upheld due to the appellants' deliberate and protracted disobedience of the court order.

The appellants appealed an order of Justice Cosgrove dated July 8, 2003, which made findings of contempt.

The Court of Appeal agreed with counsel that it was an appropriate case to allow the appeal and set aside the findings of contempt in accordance with a filed draft order.