Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-16-00555400-0000
Date: 2025-04-02
Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:
Jocine Holdings Limited, Manston Construction Limited, Sylwaks Investments Limited and Howard Adams, Roberta Cooper, Suzanne Pichosky and Elyse Tytel in their capacity as Estate Trustees of the Estate of Doris Adams, Plaintiffs

– and –

Susan Stevens, Wade Stevens, Crystal Lynn Stevens in her capacity as Estate Trustee of the Estate of Joanne Stevens, Maximum Performance & Accessories Inc., Christopher Stevens and Dylan Stevens, Defendants

Appearances:
Sean Foran and Lia Boritz, for the Plaintiffs
Ms. Stevens, self-represented party

Heard: April 2, 2025

Judge: Panagiota (Penny) Papageorgiou

Endorsement

Overview

[1] The plaintiffs bring a motion to set aside an administrative dismissal. This is unopposed. I am satisfied that the plaintiffs meet the test based upon their motion record and factum. The record sets out that the plaintiffs have been moving forward with this matter diligently and have been prosecuting this action with multiple motions and attendances at court. The only step left is to set this matter down and they inadvertently missed the deadline. There is no prejudice to the defendants as their defences have been struck and none of the defendants have responded to this motion to assert any actual or presumed prejudice. I am satisfied with the plaintiffs’ explanation and that they satisfy the test for setting aside an administrative dismissal. I am also exempting this matter from mediation.

[2] The plaintiffs also allege that the defendant Susan Stevens is in contempt of the Order of Justice Lederer dated September 29, 2016, and the Order of Justice Monahan dated September 5, 2017. They bring a motion for contempt.

[3] This motion is brought in the context of a fraud action. The plaintiffs allege that Ms. Stevens abused her role as bookkeeper to defraud them of millions of dollars.

[4] In this context, Justice Myers made a Mareva Order prohibiting Ms. Stevens from dissipating her assets on June 24, 2016. On June 30, 2016, Justice Myers modified and extended his Order and scheduled a hearing date on September 29, 2016.

[5] On September 29, 2016, Justice Lederer ordered on consent that the Mareva Order, as varied by Justice Myers' Order dated June 20, 2016, be continued until further order of the Court, and that Ms. Stevens, Wade Stevens and Maximum Performance & Accessories Inc. be prohibited from, among other things, disposing of or selling any assets from Ontario or elsewhere.

[6] On September 5, 2017, Justice Monahan extended the Order of Justice Lederer on consent and varied it to further prohibit Ms. Stevens and Mr. Stevens from using a list of twelve assets, all of which are vehicles and specifically includes a Recreational Vehicle (the “RV”).

[7] On August 29, 2018, Ms. Stevens was convicted of offences contrary to the Criminal Code resulting from her actions during her employment with the plaintiffs. Ms. Stevens pled guilty to defrauding the plaintiffs of monies of a value exceeding five thousand dollars, uttering forged documents, and laundering the proceeds of a Canadian crime. Ms. Stevens was sentenced to five years’ incarceration.

[8] On or about August 29, 2018, Justice Lipson ordered Ms. Stevens to, among other things, pay the total sum of $1.1 million to Manston Construction Ltd. ("Restitution Order").

[9] Ms. Stevens was released on parole on or about July 4, 2019. On January 3, 2020, Ms. Steven’s parole was revoked because she "had re-entered her offence cycle". This revocation was confirmed on March 19, 2020. Ms. Stevens was ultimately released in July 2022.

Decision

[10] For the reasons that follow I find Ms. Stevens in contempt.

Analysis

[11] When a person has refused to comply with a court order, a contempt order may be sought pursuant to Rule 60.11(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure:

60.11 (1) A contempt order to enforce an order requiring a person to do an act, other than the payment of money, or to abstain from doing an act, may be obtained only on motion to a judge in the proceeding in which the order to be enforced was made.

[12] In Canada Metal Co. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (No. 2), para 70, Justice O’Leary explains the importance of enforcing obedience to court orders:

To allow court orders to be disobeyed would be to treat the road towards anarchy. If orders of the Court can be treated with disrespect, the whole administration of justice is brought into scorn. Daily, thousands of Canadians resort to our Courts for relief against the wrongful acts of others. If the remedies that the Courts grant to correct those wrongs can be ignored, then there will be nothing left but for each person to take the law into his own hands. Loss of respect for the Courts will quickly result in the destruction of our society.

Canada Metal Co. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (1974), 4 OR (2d) 585 at para. 70, affirmed.

[13] In Chiang (Trustee of) v. Chiang, 2008 ONCA 3, the Court of Appeal sets out the elements of public harm and private harm that arise from contempt of court. The contempt prejudices the private litigant’s interests but also reduces the importance and authority of court orders. The Court emphasized that the goal of civil contempt is generally to coerce the party into compliance. This restores the authority of the court system and remedies the prejudice to the interests of the private litigant: at paras. 10-11 and 45.

[14] Nevertheless, the exercise of the contempt power is discretionary and Courts discourage the routine use of this power to obtain compliance with court orders. The power should be exercised cautiously and with great restraint as an enforcement tool of last, rather than first, resort: Ruffolo v. David, 2019 ONCA 385.

[15] A judge may exercise discretion to decline to impose a contempt finding where it would work an injustice. Before making a contempt finding, a judge should consider other options, such as issuing a declaration that the party breached the order or encouraging professional assistance: Carey, at paras. 36-37; Chong v. Donnelly, 2019 ONCA 799, paras 9-12; Valoris pour enfants et adultes de Prescott-Russell c. K.R., 2021 ONCA 366, para 41; and Ruffolo, supra, at paras. 18-19.

[16] Bearing in mind the above principles, the three-part test for a finding of contempt of court is well established:

a. The order in question must state clearly and unequivocally what should or should not be done.
b. The alleged contemnor must have had actual knowledge of the order. Depending on the circumstances, knowledge may be inferred. Willful blindness offers no defence.
c. The alleged contemnor must have intentionally done the act that the order prohibits or failed to do what the order demands.

Carey v. Laiken, 2015 SCC 17, paras 32-35

[17] The Ontario Court of Appeal has expressly rejected a formalistic interpretation of the relevant order and clarified that a party subject to an order must comply with both the letter and spirit of the order. An alleged contemnor cannot be permitted to “hide behind a restrictive and literal interpretation to circumvent the order and make a mockery of it and the administration of justice.”

Are the Orders Clear and Unequivocal?

[18] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Orders in question are clear and unequivocal.

[19] The Lederer Order clearly prohibits Ms. Stevens from removing, disposing of, selling, dissipating, alienating, wasting, destroying, transferring or encumbering any assets from Ontario or elsewhere.

[20] In the Monahan Order, Justice Monahan explicitly prohibited Ms. Stevens from using or allowing anyone else to use a list of assets which expressly included the RV.

Did Ms. Stevens have actual knowledge of the Orders?

[21] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Stevens had actual knowledge of the Orders. In both instances she filed affidavit materials in response to the motions. She also consented to the Monahan Order that specifically referenced the RV.

Did she intentionally do acts that the Orders prohibited?

[22] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Stevens intentionally took the RV which is a clear breach of the clear orders.

[23] The plaintiffs do not have to prove that Ms. Stevens "deliberately" breached the order: "all that is required to establish civil contempt is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of an intentional act or omission that is in fact in breach of a clear order of which the alleged contemnor has notice: Carey v. Laiken, 2015 SCC 17 at paras 32-35."

[24] Until approximately August 2024, the RV was being stored at a property located at 3016 Cole Road in Queensville, Ontario (the "Cole Road Property").

[25] Ms. Stevens and her ex-husband, Mr. Stevens were previously tenants at the Cole Road Property. After leaving the Cole Road Property, Mr. Stevens arranged with the new owner for the RV to remain there.

[26] In or about August 2024, unbeknownst to the plaintiffs, Ms. Stevens attended the Cole Road Property, together with one or more other individuals, to request possession of the RV from the owner of the property. Unaware that the RV was subject to numerous Orders of this Court, the owner permitted Ms. Stevens to access the RV and drive away with it, which she did.

[27] On October 1, 2024, a bailiff attended at the Cole Road Property to execute on the RV on behalf of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs discovered from the bailiff that the RV was no longer situated on the property.

[28] On October 4, 2024, the plaintiffs spoke with the owner of the Cole Road Property and discovered that Ms. Stevens had taken the RV in August as set out above.

[29] On October 7, 2024, the plaintiffs wrote to Ms. Stevens reminding her of the outstanding Restitution Order and Judgment against her as well as the terms of the Mareva Order and the Monahan Order and demanding that she turn over the RV forthwith. Ms. Stevens did not reply to this letter.

[30] On October 24, 2024, the bailiff confirmed that Ms. Stevens had picked up the RV.

[31] A recent MTO search reveals that Ms. Stevens sold the RV on or around February 24, 2025.

[32] Ms. Stevens is self-represented and did not provide affidavit material but provided a factum where she set out the reasons why she took the RV. She was sworn in at the hearing and provided evidence.

[33] She stated that the RV was abandoned for over four years by her husband who kept its whereabouts from her. She says the owner of the property where it was stored contacted her to have it removed.

[34] It was left with windows open, side window smashed, holes in the roof from tree branches that had fallen, had animal feces and other undesirable things within it.

[35] Notwithstanding all of the negative conditions, she admits she sold it for $20,000. She says that when she sold it she thought that the case was over and that she was no longer subject to the Orders. However, as noted, the RV was sold in February 2025 and the plaintiffs wrote to her in October 2024 with respect to the RV and then served her with its contempt motion in December 2024. She well knew about the ongoing nature of these Orders at the time she sold the RV.

[36] In the circumstances, her sale of the RV is a clear and intentional violation of the Orders and evidences an unequivocal disrespect for this Court.

[37] She says she used the money to pay outstanding debts and has a little less than $10,000 left. She says that she is unemployed and she is prepared to pay the $10,000 to the Plaintiffs.

[38] This is not a defence to the motion. In fact, it confirms exactly what the plaintiffs say.

Conclusion

[39] The Court of Appeal has directed that if a contempt finding is made, the matter is adjourned to provide the contemnor an opportunity to purge the contempt and prepare for the sentencing portion of the process: Boily at para 121.

[40] The plaintiff asks that I make an order of contempt and make the penalty order right now which it asserts should be incarceration.

[41] I decline to do so.

[42] Instead, I will give Ms. Stevens a chance to purge her contempt. The penalty portion of this matter will proceed before me on September 15, 2025, for one hour.

[43] The plaintiffs say that what they want is the full amount that the RV was sold for. They also indicate that even if they are paid the full $20,000, they do not necessarily accept that that was the fair market value and they reserve the right to sue alleging that this was a fraudulent conveyance.

[44] I am also ordering that Ms. Stevens provide production of all of the documents related to the sale of the RV including a bill of sale, purchase agreement, proof of funds received, purchaser, and MTO transfer document, and proof that she had insured the RV etc. within 7 days.

[45] On consent I am also ordering that Ms. Stevens pay the balance of the funds in her possession from the sale of the RV also within 7 days. The plaintiffs’ position is that to purge her contempt she must repay the entire amount. She indicates that she is prepared to work towards that sort of resolution but she does not have any more money.

[46] Nevertheless, even though she does not consent to the full $20,000, I am ordering that she pay the remainder back as well. Because she has spent it and is not working, I am imposing no timeline for this in the hopes that the parties will be able to come to some arrangement. If they cannot, then when they appear at the penalty phase, they may speak to this at that time.

[47] I also make an Order amending the Statement of Claim to include what they say are her aliases.

[48] Costs are assessed at $16,870.55 on a full indemnity basis. In Net Connect Installation Inc. v. Mobile Zone Inc., 2017 ONCA 766, paras 8-9 the Court of Appeal indicated that there is a rebuttable presumption that the successful party on a contempt motion is entitled to substantial indemnity costs and full indemnity costs where the conduct is especially egregious. I have reviewed the Bill of Costs. The time and hours spent are reasonable. I find that the conduct is especially egregious because she sold the RV in the face of clear communications from the plaintiffs, in addition to the Orders.

Papageorgiou J.
Released: April 2, 2025