CITATION: Scheckel v. Walker, 2017 ONSC 5263
COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-4899
DATE: 20170905
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: Gerald Scheckel, Plaintiff
AND:
Hugh Patrick Walker, aka David Braum, John Doe, Jane Doe
Defendant
BEFORE: Ricchetti, J.
COUNSEL: L. Honcikman and A. Alton, Counsel for the Plaintiffs
Hugh Patrick Walker, self-represented
HEARD: August 30, 2017
ENDORSEMENT
THE MOTION
[1] This is a contempt motion by the Plaintiff arising from the Defendant’s failure to comply with a court order dated February 9, 2017 (the “Order”).
[2] This motion was heard on August 30, 2017. After submissions, this court refused a motion by Mr. Walker for an adjournment and made a finding of contempt against Mr. Walker. This court advised that reasons would follow. These are those reasons.
The Motion to Adjourn
[3] Mr. Walker sought an adjournment to retain counsel.
[4] This was a blatant attempt to delay this motion. A brief background is necessary.
[5] This case involves the alleged fraud of $1.4 million dollars by Mr. Walker.
[6] The claim was commenced on November 8, 2016. On December 14, 2016 Mr. Walker was noted in default, having failed to file a defence.
[7] On February 9, 2017, the Plaintiff obtained the Order. The Order required Mr. Walker to:
a) Within 7 days of the Order, prepare and provide a sworn statement of his worldwide assets; and
b) Attend an examination to answer questions about the nature, value and location of his assets
[8] On February 13, 2017, Mr. Walker was served with the Order and a Notice of Examination returnable February 23, 2017.
[9] On February 23, 2017, Mr. Walker attended the examination but refused to answer any questions seeking to retain a lawyer. Mr. Walker admitted not having provided the sworn statement pursuant to the Order.
[10] The examination was adjourned until March 7, 2017.
[11] On March 7, 2017, Mr. Walker still had retained no lawyer. Mr. Walker still had provided no sworn statement pursuant to the Order. Mr. Walker continued to refuse to answer many questions regarding what had happened to the $1.4 million dollars that had gone into his bank account. Again, Mr. Walker refused to answer until he had a lawyer.
[12] Mr. Walker failed to attend court when required to do so for this contempt motion. As a result on May 9, 2017 a warrant for his arrest was issued.
[13] Mr. Walker took no steps and could not be found for some time.
[14] On or about August 4, 2017, Mr. Walker was arrested pursuant to the warrant.
[15] Mr. Walker was released and ordered to return to court on August 10, 2017. Mr. Walker had not retained counsel.
[16] Mr. Walker attended court on August 10, 2017 but still had not retained counsel. Mr. Walker was ordered to attend court on August 30, 2017. Again, Mr. Walker had not retained counsel.
[17] On August 30, 2017, Mr. Walker attended court. Mr. Walker sought an adjournment because he wanted to retain a lawyer. Mr. Walker still had not provided a sworn statement required by the Order. Mr. Walker still had not answered questions at an examination regarding his assets.
[18] Essentially, Mr. Walker has not complied with the Order because he had yet to retain counsel for approximately 7 months.
[19] In these circumstances, an adjournment was not warranted.
Contempt
[20] The Plaintiff seeks an order that Mr. Walker be found in contempt.
[21] The above background is set out in sworn evidence before this court.
[22] Mr. Walker, as is his right, chose not to put any evidence before this court. In submissions, once again asking to retain counsel.
[23] The Order is clear and unequivocal.
[24] There is no dispute that Mr. Walker was aware of the Order. In fact, at the February 23, 2017 examination, he admitted under oath to receipt of the Order and the Order was read onto the record. There is no doubt that Mr. Walker had actual knowledge of the Order.
[25] Mr. Walker may believe that simply suggesting he requires time to retain counsel is an effective or legal manner to delay compliance with the Order. It is not. There is no doubt that Mr. Walker has deliberately and willfully disobeyed the Order.
Conclusion
[26] There will be a finding of contempt by Mr. Walker.
[27] Mr. Walker will have an opportunity to purge his contempt. The sentencing hearing is scheduled for October 6, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.
[28] In the meantime, Mr. Walker may purge his contempt by providing the sworn statement required by the Order on or before September 5, 2017. Mr. Walker is to attend on September 29, 2017 at 10 at Network Reporting, Suite 500, 77 City Centre Drive, Mississauga for an examination under oath of his financial affairs and worldwide assets as required by the Order.
[29] I will deal with the issue of costs at the sentencing hearing.
Ricchetti, J.
Date: September 5, 2017
CITATION: Scheckel v. Walker, 2017 ONSC 5263
COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-4899
DATE: 20170905
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Gerald Scheckel, Plaintiff
AND:
Hugh Patrick Walker, aka David Braum, John Doe, Jane Doe
ENDORSEMENT
Ricchetti J.
Released: September 5, 2017