Reasons for Judgment
Court File No.: CV-10-00395800-0000
Date: 2025-04-10
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, Applicant
– and –
Benabdallah Chouchaoui and Windsor Industrial Development Laboratory Inc., Respondents
Applicant Counsel: Brookelyn Kirkham and Alexia Parente
Respondent: In person
Heard: April 9, 2025
Judge: Anna Papageorgiou
Overview
[1] The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (the "PEO") brings this motion for a finding of contempt against the individual respondent, Benabdallah Chouchaoui ("Chouchaoui").
[2] In Ontario, the practice of professional engineering is regulated by the PEO under the Professional Engineers Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.28 (the “Act”).
[3] Under the Act, subject to some limited exceptions, no one can practice professional engineering or hold themselves out as doing so unless they have applied for and obtained a license to practice professional engineering from the PEO. Similarly, no one can offer professional engineering services to the public unless they do so under and in accordance with a certificate of authorization from the PEO. Violating either of these restrictions constitutes an offence under the Act.
[4] The Act also has several related offences targeting conduct which would generate the impression that an unlicensed person is a professional engineer (such as the use of a professional engineering seal), or which would lead to the impression that a person was authorized to provide professional engineering services to the public without a valid certificate of authorization.
[5] The restrictions in the Act on unlicensed or unauthorized practice, and on the use of a seal, are important. Misusing an engineering seal, particularly by affixing it to documents that have not been prepared or reviewed by a licenced professional engineer, undermines the integrity of the profession and creates a false assurance of competence. Members of the public are often unable to judge the quality or competence of professional engineers, or their professional engineering work, given the highly technical nature of engineering. If everyone was permitted to call themselves a "professional engineer" or to offer professional engineering services, or use an engineering seal, there is a heightened chance that the public would engage unlicensed and incompetent individuals who could perform unsafe engineering work, which in turn poses a risk to public safety.
[6] Mr. Chouchaoui has never been a licensed professional engineer. In or around 2008 the PEO received complaints that he had used the designation “P. Eng” and represented that his company, Windsor Industrial Development Laboratory Inc., was an engineering firm providing cost-effective integrative engineering services.
[7] On May 26, 2011, this Court issued a permanent injunction on consent (the "Injunction Order"), which enjoined Chouchaoui (and his company, the respondent Windsor Industrial Development Laboratory Inc.) from: describing himself as an engineer; engaging in the practice of professional engineering in Ontario; offering to the public and engaging in the business of providing to the public services that are within the practice of professional engineering; and using an engineering seal—acts that all require a licence or other authorization from the PEO under the Act.
[8] In or around 2023, the PEO learned of conduct that it says violated the Injunction Order and brought these proceedings.
[9] On September 27, 2024, Justice Centa scheduled a timetable for this matter which was to be heard on December 11, 2024. Mr. Chouchaoui did not comply with Justice Centa’s orders in terms of filing of sworn affidavit material by the deadline which was October 27, 2024. He cancelled his cross-examination scheduled for October 31, 2024, on October 30, 2024, alleging a doctor’s appointment and that he would then be travelling on November 1, 2024. His cross-examination was rescheduled for November 8, 2024, and he failed to attend this one as well on the basis he had a medical appointment.
[10] Justice Centa ordered him to contact PEO to reschedule and attend a cross-examination before November 18, 2024. He failed to comply with Centa J.’s order by failing to follow the court-ordered timetable, failing to deliver responding evidence by sworn affidavit evidence, failing to attend or otherwise reschedule his cross-examination.
[11] On December 11, 2024, the matter was first to proceed before Dow J. Mr. Chouchaoui did not appear but someone claiming to be his brother appeared advising that he held a power of attorney for Mr. Chouchaoui and sought an adjournment on the basis that Mr. Chouchaoui had an illness.
[12] Dow J. adjourned the matter on a peremptory basis.
[13] The PEO raised the concern that it was actually Mr. Chouchaoui who appeared pretending to be his brother. Dow J. ordered that Mr. Chouchaoui shall provide a copy of the Power of Attorney that he gave his brother as well as government issued identification within the next 30 days. The PEO says that it never received this.
[14] He also ordered that this matter would be heard on the merits without Mr. Chouchaoui being able to file any responding material subject to further order of the court.
[15] Mr. Chouchaoui appeared today. As the PEO will be seeking incarceration, I permitted him to be sworn in to address the allegations against him.
[16] I note that Mr. Chouchaoui said that he did submit the power of attorney and proof of government issued identification by email to the PEO he says he sent on December 22, 2024. The PEO has never received it.
[17] When asked whether he could simply provide a copy of the email, he said he could in the future but he was not currently on his own computer as he borrowed someone else’s as his is not working. This did not explain why he could not simply sign into his own email account from the computer he allegedly borrowed to obtain a copy of the email. Then after a break, he said that he was able to find the power of attorney and identification in some hard drive and sent it to the court office today. I asked that he send this material together with the email he says he sent the PEO to the registrar. He said he would and by the end of the day, the registrar had received nothing.
[18] I followed up with the court office to see whether he had sent anything in. What he sent in was the identification of someone named Ahmed Chouchaoui as well as a power of attorney. He did not send in the email which he says he forwarded to the PEO on December 22, 2025.
[19] In general, I found him to be evasive. He also provided nonsensical answers to questions asked. He was not a credible witness.
[20] What was more troubling was his excuses and his failure to comprehend that he had done anything wrong, which suggests that he may very well do this again.
Decision
[21] For the reasons that follow I find Mr. Chouchaoui in contempt of the Injunction Order.
Analysis
Contempt Power and Its Principles
[22] 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.
[23] In Canada Metal Co. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (No. 2), (1974), 4 OR (2d) 585, para 70, aff’d, 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.
[24] 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.
[25] 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.
[26] 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 v. Laiken, 2015 SCC 17, 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.
[27] 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)
Are the Orders Clear and Unequivocal?
[28] The operative terms of the Injunction Order are as follows:
- THIS COURT ORDERS that the Respondent Benabdallah Chouchaoui, shall not in the interim describe himself as a “P. Eng” or Professional Engineer or an Engineer in any materials and shall withdraw from circulation any materials in which he described.
- THIS COURT ORDERS that the Respondents Benabdallah Chouchaoui and Windsor Industrial Development Laboratory Inc., shall not engage in the practice of professional engineering in Ontario, unless and until they obtain a License from The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (“PEO”) in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
- THIS COURT ORDERS that the Respondents shall not offer to the public and engage in the business of providing to the public services that are within the practice of professional engineering in Ontario, unless and until they obtain a Certificate of Authorization from PEO in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
- THIS COURT ORDERS that the Respondents shall not use an engineering seal, unless and until they obtain a License or Certificate of Authorization in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
- THIS COURT ORDERS costs fixed by the Court in the amount of $6,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes. The Respondents shall have 90 days within which to pay those costs.
[29] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the order is clear and unequivocal that Mr. Chouchaoui shall not use an engineering seal unless and until he obtains a license. As well, he is not permitted to offer engineering services without authorization from the PEO. The Injunction order uses broad, prohibitory language to protect the public.
[30] The purpose and effect of prohibiting Mr. Chouchaoui from engaging in activities reserved for professional engineers is to ensure that only qualified and regulated professionals undertake tasks that inherently carry risks if performed incorrectly. Engineering services, such as the application of engineering seals, signing off on designs, or representing oneself as an engineer to authorities, directly affect the safety and reliability of projects.
Did the Defendant Have Knowledge of the Orders?
[31] Mr. Chouchaoui attended the May 26, 2011, hearing when the Injunction Order was made and consented to it.
[32] Shortly after the hearing, he attempted to withdraw his consent through communications with the Court. He admitted that he consented to all the terms as a goodwill gesture, though he claimed he made a mistake in doing so. Justice Strathy advised the parties that he would not receive further communications and subsequently released his decision on costs on May 30, 2011.
[33] Therefore, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he had knowledge of the Injunction Order.
Did the Defendant Intentionally Do What the Order Prohibited?
[34] In civil contempt, the question is whether the contemnor knowingly engaged in prohibited actions: Carey v. Laiken, 2015 SCC 17, para 35.
[35] In October 2011, Mr. Chouchaoui reapplied for a licence to the PEO. The PEO advised him that his application could not be processed until, among other things, he paid the $6,000 in costs outstanding under the Injunction Order.
[36] The PEO did not process his licence application and to date he has not paid the costs award. As such, he did not become licensed following the Injunction Order.
[37] Mr. Chouchaoui continued to do business after the order.
[38] In particular he began working on a project on 1232 McDougal Street in 2017 in respect of 4 buildings.
[39] On September 11, 2023, the PEO received an email from Brandon Calleja (“Mr. Calleja”), Deputy Chief Building Official of the City, to advise that Mr. Chouchaoui had misused an engineering seal belonging to Mr. Wilcken, a licensed professional engineer with the PEO.
[40] Mr. Calleja had suspected seal misuse after noticing that Mr. Chouchaoui was recycling old drawings in subsequent permit applications, which is an uncommon practice. The City then contacted all the engineers listed in Mr. Chouchaoui's permit applications to verify their involvement. At Mr. Calleja's request, Mr. Wilcken confirmed his limited involvement in some of the projects on which his seal appeared, his defined scope of work, and which submitted drawings he had not sealed.
[41] The PEO investigated Mr. Calleja's report. The PEO determined that Mr. Wilcken sealed some but not all the drawings.
[42] In that regard, Mr. Chouchaoui had retained Mr. Wilcken in 2017 to provide engineering services on one building to address 2 walls that were missing and he sealed some drawings related to this. He also provided some drawings related to stairs and a floor repair and sealed those. He sealed drawings in 2017 associated with this scope of work.
[43] As a result, Mr. Chouchaoui had access to copies of Mr. Wilcken's physical and digital seals because he had some drawings that Mr. Wilcken had made.
[44] However, in 2021 when Mr. Chouchaoui asked him to provide additional services, Mr. Wilcken ultimately wrote and said he was not prepared to do any further work because of an outstanding account. This is documented by email correspondence. Mr. Chouchaoui baldly testified that after this email, one of his friends went and paid Mr. Wilcken and then Mr. Wilcken signed some drawings in 2022. He had submitted an unsworn affidavit from this person. It could have easily been sworn and then that person would have been subject to cross-examination. However, he did not provide any sworn affidavit. As well, after this unsworn evidence, Mr. Wilcken provided a further affidavit that he did not do this and that he only ever met directly with Mr. Chouchaoui. Therefore, I do not accept this evidence or Mr. Chouchaoui’s bald statement concerning this issue.
[45] Mr. Wilcken’s evidence is unequivocal and means that out of 48 pages that bear Mr. Wilcken’s seal, only 19 were personally sealed by him. This involved placing seals on drawings never prepared by Mr. Wilcken, changing the date on drawings he did prepare and then resubmitting them as updated drawings. It involved placing both digital seals as well as physical seals.
[46] What makes Mr. Wilcken’s evidence that he did not seal these drawings believable, is the contemporaneous email communication where he says he will no longer work for Mr. Chouchaoui and the fact that the drawings sealed were outside of Mr. Wilcken’s scope of work. As well, Mr. Wilcken described the way that he affixed his seal. It was his practice to affix his seal to a blank part of a drawing. One of the seals he says he did not affix had a line through it which was not his practice.
[47] Mr. Chouchaoui did not have any persuasive explanation as to why Mr. Wilcken would say he did not seal these drawings, other than to say that he never used Mr. Wilcken’s stamp.
[48] Mr. Chouchaoui also could not address how plans that bore Mr. Wilcken’s seal that Mr. Wilcken says he did not seal, were submitted by Mr. Chouchaoui without his knowledge that Mr. Wilcken did not seal them.
[49] It stretches credulity that someone else provided these to Mr. Chouchaoui, particularly since he was dealing with Mr. Wilcken at some point and therefore, he would have known who Mr. Wilcken is. He would have known whether he paid him anything and he did not provide any evidence of any payments to Mr. Wilcken, or any contracts or communications with Mr. Wilcken at all that would support any argument that Mr. Wilcken was the one who sealed the disputed documents.
[50] These were submitted to the City through Mr. Chouchaoui’s password protected online account that was linked to his email address. Mr. Chouchaoui signed off on the applications as the applicant. He was responsible for the contents of the applications and authorized their submission.
[51] Since Mr. Wilcken unequivocally states that he never prepared or sealed the disputed drawings, was not cross-examined, and I do not find Mr. Chouchaoui credible, I infer that Mr. Chouchaoui applied Mr. Wilcken’s seal to drawings he did not prepare, reused drawings from other engineers by affixing Mr. Wilcken’s seal and altering dates, and recycled drawings from previous projects, reapplying Mr. Wilcken’s seal with modified dates.
[52] Mr. Chouchaoui also seems to argue that in any event, what he was prevented from doing was using the P. Eng stamp that bore his name. But the order is much broader than that. It also prevents Mr. Chouchaoui from engaging in the practice of engineering or from using an engineering seal.
[53] He also repeatedly said that he did nothing wrong because it was the same project and he had in fact had engineers. While he did not admit that he had changed dates and affixed Mr. Wilcken’s seal to drawings he did not prepare, he seemed to be suggesting that there was nothing really wrong with anything he did because some were old drawings that Mr. Wilcken did create, where the date was changed, or he actually did have another engineer prepare the drawing but then Mr. Wilcken’s seal appeared on them. Again, he was not admitting this, but it was what he was suggesting in a roundabout way.
[54] Of course, all of this is still very problematic. The sanctity of the seal is paramount because when it is on a drawing, it means that the drawing is to be trusted because a professional engineer with competence who adheres to ethical standards has prepared it. The suggestion that any of this sort of conduct is not serious underscores just how serious and flagrant the breach is. Even at the hearing, Mr. Chouchaoui appeared to be making excuses.
[55] 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: Carey v. Laiken, 2015 SCC 17, paras 32-35. 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": Chirico v. Szalas, 2016 ONCA 586, paras 54, 57-58. Broad, prohibitory language is clear and unequivocal and prevents alleged contemnors from narrowly interpreting orders to only specific acts that are explicitly prohibited: Chirico, at paras. 54, 57-58.
[56] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Chouchaoui took Mr. Wilcken's seal from the past drawings he sealed and applied it to drawings Wilcken had not prepared or sealed. There is no doubt that Mr. Chouchaoui himself then submitted those fraudulent drawings to the City—through his personal email, password-protected account, and as the applicant signing off.
[57] I agree that by misusing Wilcken’s seal, Mr. Chouchaoui intentionally breached the Injunction Order prohibiting him from using an engineering seal and from engaging in the practice of engineering without approval from the PEO. His pattern of behaviour demonstrates a willful non-compliance with the Injunction Order.
[58] He also advertised offering engineering services on his website. The PEO did not discover this until the fall of 2024 and Dow J. ordered that this material be removed from the website. He then did so. But again, before me he minimized this and said that he was not offering services to the individuals but to corporations so this was somehow okay. The Injunction Order prohibiting his offering engineering services does not only cover services to individuals.
Conclusion
[59] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Chouchaoui is in contempt of the Injunction Order.
[60] 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 v. Carleton Condominium Corporation 145, 2014 ONCA 574, para 121.
[61] The sentencing hearing is scheduled for July 7, 2025, before me for two hours.
Costs
[62] The PEO requests substantial indemnity costs in the amount of $114,000.
[63] 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.
[64] After the PEO discovered what Mr. Chouchaoui had been doing, it made repeated attempts at early intervention to try to resolve this matter and to find an alternative to proceeding with this motion. Centa J. encouraged the parties to work together and they attended case conferences but Mr. Chouchaoui would not recognize the severity of the situation. He did not recognize it before me either.
[65] PEO first brought the matter forward by attending CPC Court on September 18, 2024. Over the course of this matter, four separate case conferences were required, each necessitated by the respondents' ongoing failure to engage meaningfully, comply with deadlines or respond to communications. At the case conference held on September 26, 2024, PEO attempted to engage the respondents in settlement discussions. When a resolution could not be reached, the motion was scheduled to proceed on December 11, 2024. In advance of the hearing, the respondents delivered voluminous materials late and in improper form because they were not sworn. PEO had to review and then ultimately the respondents failed to properly prepare and file those materials.
[66] PEO prepared to cross-examine the respondents in advance of scheduled examination dates, only for the respondents to withdraw at the last minute without rescheduling. On December 11, 2024, the matter was adjourned at the request of the respondent's brother, as noted above. The adjournment resulted in significant duplication of effort, as counsel had to prepare supplementary materials and update evidence in the interim.
[67] Their repeated delays, failure to communicate, continued breaches of court directions and orders, and general disdain for the court process, have unnecessarily prolonged this proceeding and significantly increased PEO's legal costs. In these circumstances, an award of substantial indemnity costs is appropriate and justified.
[68] There are 800 pages of materials in this matter which show a significant amount of work done.
[69] Nevertheless, I find that the amount of time spent and the costs request is not within the reasonable contemplation of Mr. Chouchaoui.
[70] I award total costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $50,000.
Anna Papageorgiou
Released: April 10, 2025