Contempt must be stricted construed

The contempt power is to be exercised with care and only when the conditions precedent to its use are fully met. Moreover, even should the conditions be met, the judge finding and sentencing for contempt must be express clearly in reasons as to why the power is being used.

The last point was made clear in this week's Court of Appeal decision in International Tour Entertainment Corporation v. Cutting Edge Films Inc., 2009 ONCA 507 where contempt would, on the facts, seem to be made out, but the failure of the judge to express the reasons therefore was fatal:

[2] Counsel also submits that the order against the appellant personally is authorized by rule 60.11(6) which provides:

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.

[3] Although it is clear on the record that the appellant refused to answer questions or to produce documents, the order for contempt against the personal appellant cannot be sustained. The motion judge gave no reasons to explain whether his order was made under rule 60.18(5), concealment in order to defeat or defraud creditors. Nor are there any reasons to explain the jurisdiction of the court to make an order against the personal appellant for contempt, and if the order was made using rule 60.11(6), on what basis that rule can be used in conjunction with rule 60.18(5). Without any reasons to assess, this court is not able to determine on appeal whether, and if so, on what basis there was jurisdiction to make the contempt order.