Source: http://isthatlegal.ca/index.php?name=558-case-law
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 06:18:14+00:00

Document:
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: see Carey v. Laiken, 2015 SCC 17 (CanLII),  2 S.C.R. 79, at paras. 32-35.
(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.
 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: see U.N.A. v. Alberta (Attorney General), 1992 CanLII 99 (SCC),  1 S.C.R. 901, at para. 21. The choice of penalty for contempt must recognize the important distinction between civil and criminal contempt.
 It is well recognized that the purpose of a sentence for criminal contempt is primarily punishment, whereas the purpose of a sentence for civil contempt is primarily about coercion, designed to protect and enforce the rights of a private party: see Korea Data Systems Co. v. Chiang, 2009 ONCA 3 (CanLII), 93 O.R. (3d) 483, at para. 11.
 However, while gaining compliance with the court’s orders is the primary aim of sentencing in civil contempt proceedings, courts have also recognized that acts of civil contempt, like criminal contempt, undermine the authority of the courts and diminish respect for the law: see Mercedes-Benz Financial v. Kovacevic (2009), 2009 CanLII 9423 (ON SC), 308 D.L.R. (4th) 562 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 11; Niagara Regional Police Services Board v. Curran (2002), 2002 CanLII 49405 (ON SC), 57 O.R. (3d) 631 (S.C.), at para. 35; Sussex Group Ltd. v. 3933938 Canada Inc.,  O.T.C. 664 (S.C.), at para. 12.
The rule of law is at the heart of our society; without it there can be neither peace, nor order nor good government. The rule of law is directly dependent on the ability of the courts to enforce their process and maintain their dignity and respect. To maintain their process and respect, courts since the 12th century have exercised the power to punish for contempt of court.
The purpose of a penalty for civil contempt is to enforce compliance with a court order and to ensure societal respect for the courts. [Citation Omitted.] The remedy for civil contempt is designed not only to enforce the rights of a private party … but also to enforce the efficacy of the process of the court itself.
There are two primary purposes to be served in sentencing, and I must have regard to both in this case. First – and usually primarily, the objective of sentencing is to coerce the contemnor to comply with the orders in question.
A second objective of sentencing is punishment. Punishment serves to denounce conduct that requires denouncing and thereby deter the contemnor specifically and others more generally who might contemplate breaches of court orders at will. If a party has disagreements or issues with an order that has been made, it must nevertheless be complied with unless validly stayed or reversed on appeal in accordance with the rules. There is no self-help after an order has been issued.
See also Law Society of Upper Canada v. Fingold, 2016 ONSC 5684 (CanLII), at paras. 38-43.
In Canada punishment for contempt has been quite moderate, reflecting the courts' usual view that a conviction for contempt and a modest fine is usually sufficient to assert the courts' authority, to protect their dignity or to ensure compliance. Often these sentences are imposed after the contemnor has apologized and purged his or her contempt which substantially mitigates any punishment that might otherwise be imposed.
This court has imposed jail sentences ranging from five days to one year in cases of civil contempt. Each of the custodial cases have two things in common: one, the defendant’s breach, like here, was knowing and deliberate; and two, the length of the jail term was a function of the continuing nature of the contempt discounted by the degree of remorse or apology on the part of the defendant…. In my view, where the breach of a court order is knowing and deliberate, continues over several days, and the only response from the defendant is defiance without remorse, a jail sentence is appropriate.
 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. Where, as here, the impossibility of purging the contempt is a situation of the contemnors’ own making, it is not a mitigating factor: see Echostar Communications Corp. v. Rodgers, 2010 ONSC 2164 (CanLII), 97 C.P.C. (6th) 177, at para. 45.
 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: see Mercedes-Benz Financial, at para. 35.
 While each case is fact specific, incarceration has been imposed in numerous cases for failure to produce documents or corporate records: see Sussex Group Ltd. v. Sylvester (2002), 2002 CanLII 27188 (ON SC), 62 O.R. (3d) 123 (S.C.), at para. 85 (6 months); Nelson Barbados Group Ltd. v. Cox, 2010 ONSC 569 (CanLII), at para. 35 (3 months and a fine of $7500); Cellupica v. Di Giulio, 2011 ONSC 1715 (CanLII), 105 O.R. (3d) 687, at para. 49 (90 days); Sussex Group Ltd. v. 3933938 Canada Inc., 2003 CanLII 49334 (ON SC),  O.T.C. 683 (S.C.), at para. 15 (2 months); Nowack, at para. 114 (1 month).
 As noted above, serious violations of court orders – even if only one order or one instance – can warrant a jail sentence. In determining whether a jail sentence is needed to adequately vindicate the due administration of justice, the context in which the contempt occurs is an important consideration: see Langston v. Landen, 2011 ONCA 242 (CanLII), at para. 1. 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.
(a) Proportionality of the sentence to the wrongdoing – a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender: see also Chiang, at para. 86; Mercedes-Benz Financial, at para. 12.
(b) Presence of aggravating and mitigating factors: see also Chiang, at paras. 50-51, 87-89; Sussex Group Ltd. v. Fangeat,  O.T.C. 781 (S.C.), at para. 67.
(c) Deterrence and denunciation – the sentence should denounce unlawful conduct and promote a sense of responsibility in the contemnor, and deter the contemnor and others from defying court orders: see also Chiang, at para. 91; Fangeat, at para. 67.
(d) Similarity of sentence in like circumstances.
(e) Reasonableness of a fine or incarceration: see generally Chiang.

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