Blais et al. v. Belanger, (2007) 224 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

• Judge: MacPherson, Sharpe and Juriansz, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: January 15, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2007), 224 O.A.C. 1 (CA);2007 ONCA 310

Blais v. Belanger (2007), 224 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] O.A.C. TBEd. AP.084

Robert Blais and Michael Karchie (respondents) v. Contrand Belanger (appellant)

(C44843; 2007 ONCA 310)

Indexed As: Blais et al. v. Belanger

Ontario Court of Appeal

MacPherson, Sharpe and Juriansz, JJ.A.

April 24, 2007.

Summary:

The applicants sought a declaration that a road traversing Belanger's property was an access road withing the meaning of the Road Access Act and an injunction restricting Belanger from, inter alia, interfering with their passage over the road. Poupore, J., granted the applicants an interlocutory injunction and ordered that there be a trial respecting the applicants' claim for a declaration concerning the access road. Belanger interfered with the applicants' access. The applicants brought a motion for contempt. Gordon, J., ordered that access be restored and the parties agreed to adjourn the contempt matter until after the trial respecting the declaration.

The Ontario Superior Court, per Meehan, J., in a decision reported at [2003] O.T.C. 951, granted judgment to the applicants and issued an injunction granting them access under the Act. The contempt matter proceeded. Meehan, J., found Belanger in contempt and ordered him to pay the applicants substantial indemnity costs of $35,000 as a penalty. Belanger appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. The court held that the trial judge erred in granting the injunction and in finding that an access road existed. The court upheld the contempt order.

Contempt - Topic 684

What constitutes contempt - Judgments and orders - Disobedience of or non-compliance with - The applicants sought a declaration that a road traversing Belanger's property was an access road withing the meaning of the Road Access Act and an injunction restricting Belanger from, inter alia, interfering with their passage over the road - Poupore, J., granted the applicants an interlocutory injunction requiring Belanger to open a gate he had erected and ordered that there be a trial respecting the applicants' claim for a declaration concerning the access road - Belanger opened the gate but placed obstacles across the road, removed a culvert and ploughed a field - Meehan, J., found Belanger in contempt of the prior interim orders - Belanger appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that Belanger's disregard of the court's authority was properly found to be contemptuous - He was not entitled to disregard their orders because he believed the court would ultimately decide the access road issue in his favour - He was bound to comply with the interim orders as long as they remained in effect - Any suggestion that he was in technical compliance with the court's orders had no merit - While he opened the gate as ordered, he placed obstacles across the road, removed a culvert, and ploughed a field, all to impede passage - These deliberate acts were calculated to circumvent the judicial process - A primary purpose of the Act was to prevent landowners from resorting to self-help measures by providing a judicially supervised process for resolving disputes - See paragraphs 41 to 44.

Contempt - Topic 2647

Defences - Particular defences - Invalidity of order disobeyed - [See Contempt - Topic 684 ].

Courts - Topic 561

Judges - Powers - To make order not requested - The applicants sought a declaration that a road traversing Belanger's property was an access road withing the meaning of the Road Access Act and an injunction restricting Belanger from, inter alia, interfering with their passage over the road - Poupore, J., granted the applicants an interlocutory injunction and ordered that there be a trial respecting the applicants' claim for a declaration concerning the access road - The trial judge granted judgment to the applicants and issued an injunction granting them access under the Act - Belanger appealed, arguing that the trial judge could not grant an injunction as the trial of an issue was ordered only in relation to the applicants' claim for a declaration - The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed - The trial judge ought not to have granted an injunction when no claim for one was before him - The court set aside the injunction - See paragraphs 9 and 17 to 20.

Highways - Topic 13

General and definitions - Definitions - Access road - The applicants sought a declaration that a road traversing Belanger's property was an access road withing the meaning of the Road Access Act - The trial judge granted judgment to the applicants - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed Belanger's appeal and remitted the matter to be re-determined by another trial judge - Appellate intervention was justified since the trial judge failed to apply certain legal factors and did not appreciate evidence relevant to the application of those factors - The trial judge not appear to appreciate that: those who use an access road on the land of another did not have the right to repair or maintain the road, the Act did not place any obligation on a landowner to maintain an access road across his or her property, and an access road could, through deterioration over time, cease to be a road - See paragraphs 21 to 40.

Cases Noticed:

Equity Waste Management of Canada et al. v. Halton Hills (Town) (1997), 103 O.A.C. 324; 35 O.R.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Whitmell v. Ritchie et al. (1994), 74 O.A.C. 317; 40 R.P.R.(2d) 165; 20 O.R.(3d) 424 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

992275 Ontario Inc. et al. v. Krawczyk (2006), 209 O.A.C. 302 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Borrie and Lowe, The Law of Contempt (3rd Ed. 1996), pp. 655, 656 [para. 42].

Miller, Jeffrey, The Law of Contempt in Canada (1997), pp. 13 to 17, 85 to 99 [para. 42].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), p. 1 [para. 29].

Counsel:

J. Robert Leblanc, for the appellant;

Kelly Gravelle, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on January 15, 2007, by MacPherson, Sharpe and Juriansz, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Juriansz, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court which was released on April 24, 2007.