Contempt of Court in Ontario

The Nature of Contempt of Court

Contempt of court is conduct that interferes with or disrespects the authority of the court or fails to comply with court orders. The law of contempt in Ontario is primarily judge-made, drawing on the court's inherent jurisdiction to ensure its orders and processes are respected. It is codified for the Superior Court of Justice in Rule 60.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and in the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 for criminal contempt.

Ontario courts distinguish two categories of contempt:

• Civil contempt — private or procedural disobedience of a court order that primarily affects the opposing party's rights; typically remedied through compliance-focused orders
• Criminal contempt — public defiance of court authority that tends to bring the administration of justice into disrepute; carries more serious consequences and engages Charter protections as a criminal-adjacent proceeding

The leading Supreme Court of Canada case is United Nurses of Alberta v Alberta (Attorney General) [1992] 1 SCR 901, confirming that criminal contempt requires public defiance of court authority with the purpose of making that defiance public and marking disrespect for the court — mere private disobedience remains civil contempt.

The Standard of Proof: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Both civil and criminal contempt in Ontario must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a critical distinction from most civil proceedings — contempt is not proved on a balance of probabilities even when the underlying proceeding is a civil action.

The criminal standard applies because contempt can result in imprisonment, which is a deprivation of liberty. The Charter s. 7 right to liberty requires that deprivation not occur except in accordance with principles of fundamental justice, and courts have held that the criminal standard of proof is a fundamental justice requirement for any proceeding that may result in imprisonment.

In practice, many contempt motions fail because the moving party presents evidence to the civil standard without recognizing that the court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. Ambiguities in the evidence must be resolved in favour of the alleged contemnor — not in favour of the moving party.

The Three-Part Test for Civil Contempt

For civil contempt based on disobedience of a court order, Ontario courts apply a three-part test derived from Bhatnager v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1990] 2 SCR 217. The moving party must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:

This three-part test was confirmed and applied in Carey v Laiken 2015 SCC 17, where the Supreme Court clarified that civil contempt does not require proof of deliberate intent to defy the court — the moving party need only prove that the respondent deliberately did the act that the order prohibited.

Contempt Procedure Under Rule 60.11

In Ontario civil proceedings, contempt of a court order is brought by motion under Rule 60.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Key procedural requirements:

• Notice of motion — the alleged contemnor must receive adequate notice of the contempt allegation and the conduct complained of
• Personal service — the contempt motion materials must be personally served on the alleged contemnor (not just on their lawyer)
• Factual specificity — the motion must identify the specific act or omission alleged to constitute contempt and the specific order violated
• Right to counsel — the alleged contemnor must have the opportunity to retain and instruct counsel before the hearing
• Right to silence — because of the potential for imprisonment, the alleged contemnor has the right to remain silent; the evidentiary burden is entirely on the moving party

Courts have discretion to dispense with personal service of the underlying order (the breach of which is alleged) where the party was present in court when it was made. But the contempt motion materials themselves must be personally served.

Purging Contempt

A finding of contempt does not irrevocably fix the consequences. A person found in contempt can "purge" the contempt by: (1) complying with the court order that was violated; (2) apologizing unreservedly to the court; and (3) demonstrating genuine and ongoing compliance with the court's orders.

Courts strongly prefer compliance over punishment. The purpose of civil contempt proceedings is coercive, not punitive — the goal is to compel the party to comply with the court's order. Where the contemnor purges the contempt by complying, the court may release them from any sentence imposed, reduce the fine, or discharge the contempt finding.

Criminal contempt proceedings are more punitive in nature — the goal includes marking society's disapproval of conduct that brings the administration of justice into disrepute. Purging is still possible in criminal contempt cases, but the public interest element means the sentence may not be fully discharged by compliance alone.

Sanctions for Contempt

The court has broad discretion to impose sanctions for contempt, ranging from minor to severe:

Courts approach sentencing for contempt by considering the nature and seriousness of the contempt, the contemnor's history of compliance or non-compliance, the extent to which the contempt harmed the opposing party, the contemnor's financial circumstances (relevant to fine quantum), and the degree to which the contemnor has shown remorse or taken steps to remedy the breach.

Imprisonment is a last resort for civil contempt — courts prefer fines and conditional orders that create an ongoing incentive to comply. Imprisonment becomes more appropriate where: the party has been given multiple chances to comply, compliance is clearly achievable, and the party has deliberately and persistently defied the court.

Contempt in Specific Contexts

Injunctions and Restraining Orders

Contempt is the primary enforcement mechanism for injunctions. A party who violates an injunction — interlocutory or permanent — can be brought before the court on a contempt motion. Courts take injunction contempt seriously because injunctions typically protect urgent interests (property, safety, or competitive advantage) and their effectiveness depends on immediate compliance.

Before seeking a contempt order for injunction breach, the moving party must ensure the injunction was personally served on the violating party, the terms were clear and the specific act clearly fell within the prohibited conduct, and there is evidence of the specific breach (not merely circumstantial evidence).

Family Law Contempt

Contempt is frequently used in family law to enforce parenting orders, property orders, and restraining orders. Ontario courts apply the Family Law Rulesprovisions on enforcement and the inherent jurisdiction to hold parties in contempt for violating family orders.

Family law contempt raises particular sensitivities: a parent imprisoned for contempt cannot care for children; fines may reduce resources available for child support. Courts balance enforcement with the best interests of the children affected by the dispute.

Parenting order contempt is taken very seriously — a parent who repeatedly withholds a child from the other parent in violation of a court order faces escalating sanctions, including ultimate imprisonment, and potentially a change in custody to the complying parent as the enforcement measure.

Commercial Litigation

In commercial litigation, contempt most commonly arises from: failure to comply with production orders, failure to abide by undertakings given to the court, violation of Mareva injunctions (asset preservation orders), and breach of confidentiality orders. Mareva injunction contempt is particularly significant — a party who dissipates assets in breach of a Mareva can be imprisoned, and the court can trace and recover dissipated assets through constructive trust remedies.

Frequently Asked Questions