SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

COURT FILE NO: CV-12-460776
COURT FILE NO: CV-12-460828
DATE: 20140331

RE: Ian Ihnatowycz, Donna Ihnatowycz, Vincent Joseph Murphy, Adrienne Olga Murphy, Matthew Julian Murphy, Adrianna Katherine Murphy, Katharyne Roxalana Goshulak, Mary Amilia Parzei, Nykola Leon Parzei, Stephanie Daria Parzei, Katheryne Olha Parzei, John Ostap Goshulak, Debra Lenore Goshulak-Morningstar, Peter John Goshulak, Emily Ann Goshulak, Larissa Morningstar Daria Goshulak, Daria Anna Goshulak, Marta Witer, James Temerty, Louise Temerty and First Generation Capital Inc.

Applicants

• and -

Terry Disterheft a.k.a. Terry Motria Disterheft a.k.a. Terry Motria Goshulak-Disterheft a.k.a. Motria Disterheft a.k.a. Terry Goshulak a.k.a. Terry Motria Goshulak a.k.a. Motria Goshulak a.k.a. Luba Goshulak, Terry Disterheft c.o.b. as Bliss’Que Executive Coaching, Terry Disterheft c.o.b. as Perlova Platinum, Terry Disterheft c.o.b. as Koronex, Bliss’Que International Global Investing Company Ltd., Perlova Canada Limited, Optic Fibre Grown Inc., Fibre Sun Ltd. and John Does No. 1 to 100

Respondents

BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice Kevin Whitaker

COUNSEL: Terry Disterheft, Self-Represented Respondent
Barry Bresner & Isabella Massimi, for the Applicants

HEARD: March 31, 2014

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This is a motion for contempt.

[2] In an application heard on May 6, 2013 by Chapnik J., the respondent, Terry Disterheft, was found to be a vexatious litigant. She was also by order, permanently enjoined from communicating with the applicants and from publishing information and commentary dealing with them.

[3] At the hearing of the application, Justice Chapnik took Ms. Disterheft through her order line-by-line so as to ensure that Ms. Disterheft knew exactly what her obligations were under the terms of the order. She confirmed her understanding of her obligations.

[4] The parameters of the permanent injunction are clearly set out in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Chapnik endorsement.

[5] The applications which led to the vexatious litigant finding are set out in paragraph 3 of the order.

[6] The applicant today put 14 volumes of electronic material before me, all of it generated by the respondent and commenting on the other litigants and most particularly, publishing the view that Justice Chapnik and other judicial and law enforcement individuals have taken bribes in this matter.

[7] There is no doubt in my mind that absent any psychiatric disability, Ms. Disterheft’s conduct is made intentionally and with a clear understanding of the scope of the restrictions on her behaviour as set out in the endorsement by Chapnik J.

[8] Indeed, it is difficult to understand or explain why she acts in this fashion absent some type of underlying cognitive disability.

[9] In response to the suggestion that she may be mentally ill, Ms. Disterheft asserts that she has been examined by a psychiatrist and is healthy.

[10] Before sentencing, the applicant seeks an order for Ms. Disterheft to submit to a psychiatric examination, pursuant to section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43 (see J.L.L. v. S.B.L., [2004] O.J. No. 5234 135 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1086).

[11] In my view, it is appropriate to make the order for a psychiatric assessment at this point before deciding liability and sentencing. If the respondent is suffering from some cognitive illness, then she may not be capable of forming the intent to act contemptuously. The applicant has identified a suitable psychiatrist who is prepared to take on the task of conducting an assessment of the respondent, and to report back to the court.

[12] If necessary, a Litigation Guardian may be appointed following the assessment.

[13] There is an order to go granting the relief sought in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the motion.

[14] Costs are reserved pending the psychiatric assessment. The applicants may dispense with the respondent’s approval of the order for form and content.

Whitaker J.

DATE: March 31, 2014