Simon Bjarn Cox

The court imposed a 21-day jail sentence on a corporate officer for civil contempt of court.

The officer repeatedly refused to attend examinations in aid of execution despite multiple court orders, summons, and opportunities to comply.

The court found that suspended sentences and fines would be ineffective given the respondent's pattern of non-compliance.

The court also awarded costs of $15,750 to the creditor union.

The underlying dispute involved unpaid wages and benefits owed to union members under a collective agreement, with an arbitrator's award of $50,587.38 that remained largely unpaid.

The appellant, a former nurse, appealed the dismissal of her motion for a declaration that her insurer (HIROC) owed her a duty to defend against multiple civil actions.

These underlying actions alleged the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, negligence, breach of statute, and breach of fiduciary duty, stemming from her unauthorized access of patient records to obtain narcotics.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no duty to defend.

The court affirmed that the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, whether intentional or reckless, involves conduct that is not "accidental" and thus falls outside the policy's definition of "occurrence" and within the intentional act exclusion.

The court also rejected the argument that denying coverage for intentional privacy breaches would nullify the policy, as it still covered negligent privacy breaches.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order to compel the plaintiff to attend a defence medical examination without the condition that the examining doctor obtain further consent for supplementary reports.

The plaintiff argued that such consent was required under the Health Care Consent Act, the Medicine Act, and the Regulated Health Professions Act, asserting that a supplementary report constituted a new report requiring fresh consent.

The court found that consent was not required, as the preparation of a supplementary report is not a "treatment" under the Health Care Consent Act.

Furthermore, Rule 33 and Section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act were deemed a complete code for court-ordered medical examinations, implying the ability to prepare supplementary reports.

The defendants' motion was granted without the plaintiff's requested condition, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs.