Defendants were in breach of a Mareva order to disclose their assets. Because of the continued breach and contempt, the motion judge granted judgment in favour of the plaintiffs for $9 million. The Court of Appeal noted that this sentencing remedy was appropriate, but only if there was a more searching inquiry about the merits of the defence, somewhat resembling a summary judgment motion. The Court, which set out the sentencing factors, sent the matter back to another motion judge for sentencing. The court also noted that it was settled law that a fine imposed for contempt is payable to the Crown and not to the opposing party.
Written by Jonathan Speigel, the founding partner of Speigel Nichols Fox LLP, leads the litigation and construction practices.