Court File and Parties
CITATION: Headworth v. Lebar, 2016 ONSC 3978
COURT FILE NO.: 9369/14
DATE: 2016-06-15
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: Theresa Headworth, Applicant
AND: Thomas David LeBar, Respondent
BEFORE: Mr Justice Ramsay
COUNSEL: both parties in person
HEARD: June 15, 2016 at Welland
Endorsement
[1] The parties settled the legal consequences of separation after a fifteen-year domestic relationship with an agreement that formed the basis for a court order made April 27, 2016 on consent. The Applicant moves to cite the Respondent for contempt of court for his failure to comply with one term of that order.
[2] The term in question:
- The Respondent shall purchase a certified e-tested car for the Applicant with a book value of not less than $5,000 for her use absolutely and shall transfer the ownership into her name.
[3] The Applicant deposes that the Respondent obtained a certified, e-tested car and transferred the ownership into her name, but the car is not worth any $5,000. The car, a 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt with 203,000 kilometres on the clock, was appraised at $500 on March 31, 2016. It needed transmission work and had bald tires.
[4] The Respondent testified that he is in the car business. He bought the car in question, which had been in an accident, and repaired it by doing body work, transmission work and installing new parts. It would have cost more than $5,000 to buy these parts and do the work. He bought the parts and is counting what he would normally charge someone else for his own work. He provided estimates from others in the same business including itemized parts and hours of labour, to demonstrate that his estimate of the value of the vehicle is correct. He says that the valuation obtained by the Applicant is a valuation for tax purposes. (That is not good, but I do not know to whom I should attribute any mischief.)
[5] This is a case of civil contempt of court. It involves the allegation that the Respondent breached a court order involving redress of a private right.
[6] In order to find contempt in that case, the court has to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the following five elements:
a. A court order was in effect;
b. The alleged contemnor knew so;
c. The order stated clearly and unequivocally what had to be done;
d. The alleged contemnor disobeyed the order by violating one of its terms or by undertaking a course of action that had the effect of thwarting the implementation of the order; and
e. The contempt was wilful and deliberate. See Jackson v. Jackson, 2016 ONSC 3466 (Chappel J.).
[7] It is common ground that the first two elements have been established. I cannot say that the remaining elements have been established to my satisfaction on the criminal standard.
[8] It is not clear to me what “book value” means in this context to these particular litigants. It strikes me as something distinct from and probably less than “retail value.” It may well be that the Respondent was entitled to take into account the cost of his own labour, as he did. It seems to me that the order and the parties contemplated an old vehicle that needed repair before it was fit to license. For $5,000 they were not talking about a very good car. The $500 appraisal was based in part on the fact that the car needed transmission work. I do not reject the Respondent’s testimony that he performed transmission work.
[9] I am not sure that the Respondent disobeyed the order or that he did so wilfully or deliberately.
[10] The motion is dismissed without costs.
J.A. Ramsay J.
Date: 2016-06-15