Source: http://isthatlegal.ca/index.php?name=Contempt
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 20:17:46+00:00

Document:
1. The order is missing an essential term about where, when or to whom the order applies.
2. The order employs unclear or overly broad language.
3. The external circumstances obscure the meaning of the order.
the evidence must prove contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.
the party must have intentionally done the act that the order prohibits or intentionally failed to do the act that the order compels.
"The elements of contempt, which must be established beyond a reasonable doubt, are the following: (a) the order alleged to have been breached must state clearly and unequivocally what should and should not be done; (b) the party alleged to have breached the order must have had actual knowledge of it; and (c) the party allegedly in breach must have intentionally done the act that the order prohibits or intentionally failed to do the act that the order compels": Business Development Bank of Canada v. Cavalon Inc. (Ont CA, 2017), para 17.
Procedures for civil contempt are governed by R60.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The court can have reference to the Criminal Code for guidance (here in imposing a conditional sentence), but the Criminal Code provisions are not binding: Astley v Verdun (Ont CA, 2015).
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.
(2) The notice of motion shall be served personally on the person against whom a contempt order is sought, and not by an alternative to personal service, unless the court orders otherwise.
(3) An affidavit in support of a motion for a contempt order may contain statements of the deponent’s information and belief only with respect to facts that are not contentious, and the source of the information and the fact of the belief shall be specified in the affidavit.
(4) A judge may issue a warrant (Form 60K) for the arrest of the person against whom a contempt order is sought where the judge is of the opinion that the person’s attendance at the hearing is necessary in the interest of justice and it appears that the person is not likely to attend voluntarily.
and may grant leave to issue a writ of sequestration under rule 60.09 against the person’s property.
(6) Where a corporation is in contempt, the judge may also make an order under subrule (5) against any officer or director of the corporation and may grant leave to issue a writ of sequestration under rule 60.09 against his or her property.
(7) An order under subrule (5) for imprisonment may be enforced by the issue of a warrant of committal (Form 60L).
(8) On motion, a judge may discharge, set aside, vary or give directions in respect of an order under subrule (5) or (6) and may grant such other relief and make such other order as is just.
(9) Where a person fails to comply with an order requiring the doing of an act, other than the payment of money, a judge on motion may, instead of or in addition to making a contempt order, order the act to be done, at the expense of the disobedient person, by the party enforcing the order or any other person appointed by the judge.
(10) The party enforcing the order and any person appointed by the judge are entitled to the costs of the motion under subrule (9) and the expenses incurred in doing the act ordered to be done, fixed by the judge or assessed by an assessment officer in accordance with Rule 58.
There is no set procedure for a contempt hearing, but they are usually bifurcated into liability and penalty phases. The main factor on penalty is whether the party has since purged their contempt between the two stages (ie. since complied with the order). The reasons for bifurcation are due to the criminal purpose of the hearing, that having a single hearing runs the "risk that evidence relevant, material and admissible to liability, will be improperly applied to penalty or vice versa.": Boily v Carleton Condominium Corporation 145 (Ont CA, 2014), para 121-127.
"The Rules do not prescribe the form of contempt proceedings. However, as a general rule, proceedings are bifurcated into a liability phase — where the case on liability proceeds and a defence is offered — and, if liability is established, a penalty phase. In contempt proceedings, liability and penalty are discrete issues ..." Carey v Laiken (SCC, 2015), para 18.
"Without exhaustively outlining the circumstances in which a judge may properly revisit an initial contempt finding, I agree with the Court of Appeal that he or she may do so where the contemnor subsequently complies with the order or otherwise purges his or her contempt or, in exceptional circumstances, where new facts or evidence have come to light after the contempt finding was made." Carey v Laiken (SCC, 2015), para 66.
"Ordinarily, the period between a finding of contempt and the penalty hearing gives the contemnor an opportunity to purge his or her contempt. At the penalty hearing, if the contemnor has purged his or her contempt, as Belobaba J. noted, this is a significant mitigating factor with respect to the penalty imposed." Business Development Bank of Canada v. Cavalon Inc. (Ont CA, 2017), para 86.
Contumacious intent, or to intent to interfere with the administration of justice, is not a necessary requirement of the mental element. The mens rea is lower than that, but contumacious intent can go to heighten penalty: Carey v Laiken (SCC, 2015), para 38-39.
The contempt power is discretionary, and courts have consistently discouraged its routine use to obtain compliance with court orders to avoid cheapening the role and authority of the courts. It is an enforcement power of last resort. Carey v Laiken (SCC, 2015), para 36-37.
The purpose of a penalty for civil contempt is "to enforce compliance with a court order and to ensure societal respect for the courts": Boily v Carleton Condominium Corporation 145 (Ont CA, 2014), para 79.
"The court must assess the seriousness of the disrespect of the court, not the severity of any resulting harm.": Boily v Carleton Condominium Corporation 145 (Ont CA, 2014), para 129-130.
The purpose of contempt of court proceedings is to uphold the court's dignity, respect and process: Carey v Laiken (SCC, 2015), para 30.
"Because civil contempt engages issues of public law and the need to condemn acts which undermine the authority and dignity of the court, punishment has been recognized as a secondary purpose for sentencing in such cases." Business Development Bank of Canada v. Cavalon Inc. (Ont CA, 2017), para 81.
the reasonableness of a fine or incarceration.
The sentence must be proportional to the wrongdoing: Boily v Carleton Condominium Corporation 145 (Ont CA, 2014), para 91.
The most important factor in determining a penalty of civil contempt is deterrence, both specific and general: Boily v Carleton Condominium Corporation 145 (Ont CA, 2014), para 105.
"One such factor is the particular contemnor’s ability to pay lest the amount either be trivial or unduly punitive: ...": Boily v Carleton Condominium Corporation 145 (Ont CA, 2014), para 133.
Normal fines range for civil contempt from $1,500 to $5,000. Custodial sentences are rare and Canadian courts tend to be lenient, even where there the contempt involves substantial amounts of money. There are a few instances of fines of $100,000 or more involving large corporations in egregious situations, or unions with a large membership. Contempt motivated by personal gain is also an aggravating factor. In recent cases a "lengthy course of disobedience and where the contemnors have not purged their contempt" have resulted in more substantial penalties for contempt: Boily v Carleton Condominium Corporation 145 (Ont CA, 2014), para 108-111.
(f) comply with any other order that the judge considers necessary, and may grant leave to issue a writ of sequestration under rule 60.09 against the person’s property." Business Development Bank of Canada v. Cavalon Inc. (Ont CA, 2017), para 74.
"In civil cases, incarceration is rare. Ordinarily, a finding of contempt, together with a fine or some other order in relation to the litigation, is sufficient to gain compliance and restore the authority of the court." Business Development Bank of Canada v. Cavalon Inc. (Ont CA, 2017), para 82.
Business Development Bank of Canada v. Cavalon Inc. (Ont CA, 2017), para 84.
"A wilful flagrant breach of a single court order that shows a callous disregard for the court’s authority, or that causes significant prejudice to the other party may attract a jail sentence" Business Development Bank of Canada v. Cavalon Inc. (Ont CA, 2017), para 87.
"While each case is fact specific, incarceration has been imposed in numerous cases for failure to produce documents or corporate records" Business Development Bank of Canada v. Cavalon Inc. (Ont CA, 2017), para 88.
"Because incarceration is ordinarily a penalty of last resort, the court must also consider whether any other penalty short of incarceration would be a sufficient sanction for the gravity of the contempt, taking into consideration the sentencing principles applicable to civil contempt." Business Development Bank of Canada v. Cavalon Inc. (Ont CA, 2017), para 89.
The role of an appellate court in reviewing a sentence for contempt should be limited to intervening only where there has been an error in principle in arriving at the sentence or the sentence is clearly unfit.
Where the underlying order becomes 'ineffective', the course of action is not to disobey the contempt order, but to move for directions as soon as the problem becomes apparent or appeal: Boily v Carleton Condominium Corporation 145 (Ont CA, 2014), para 39.
"Where, as here, the impossibility of purging the contempt is a situation of the contemnors’ own making, it is not a mitigating factor" Business Development Bank of Canada v. Cavalon Inc. (Ont CA, 2017), para 86.
It is generally considered exceptional to find contempt in family law situations, but in extreme cases it will be ordered: Godard v Godard (Ont CA, 2015).
Criminal contempt has an element of public defiance which civil contempt lacks. Civil contempt is primarily coercive rather than punitive, however it does punish breach of a court order to deter both the contemnor and others. Carey v Laiken (SCC, 2015), para 31.
"A deliberate breach of a court order may constitute either a civil or a criminal contempt. A criminal contempt requires, in addition to a deliberate violation of a court order, an element of public defiance calculated to lessen societal respect for the courts." Business Development Bank of Canada v. Cavalon Inc. (Ont CA, 2017), para 76.
Reliance on legal advice does not shield a party from a finding of contempt. Carey v Laiken (SCC, 2015), para 44.
 Furthermore, the court was pointed to no authority for the requested relief. On the assumption that Rushlade was relying on the dissenting judgment of Laskin J.A. in Dickie v. Dickie, (2006), 2006 CanLII 576 (ON CA), 78 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.), at para. 87, affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada:  1 S.C.R. 346, 2007 SCC 8 (CanLII), at para. 6, the test set down in that authority had not been met. According to Dickie, the court has a discretion to refuse to hear a litigant, who has wilfully breached a court order, until the litigant has cured the breach. Even if Dr. Gerber’s breach of the LaForme J.A. order was wilful, he cured it by filing his factum (albeit past the specified deadline).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.