Boily et al. v. Carleton Condominium Corp. No. 145 et al.,

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: Epstein, Lauwers and Pardu, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2014 ONCA 574
• Citation: (2014), 322 O.A.C. 261 (CA),2014 ONCA 574,121 OR (3d) 670,[2014] OJ No 3625 (QL),322 OAC 261,[2014] O.J. No 3625 (QL),(2014), 322 OAC 261 (CA),121 O.R. (3d) 670,322 O.A.C. 261
• Date: 09 December 2013
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)

Boily v. Carleton Condo. (2014), 322 O.A.C. 261 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] O.A.C. TBEd. AU.004

Danielle Boily, Juan Escudero, Lisa Backa-Demers, Kanta Marwah, Doug Cummings and Richard Maurel (applicant/respondent) v. Carleton Condominium Corporation 145, Dan Litchinsky, Avis Miller, Jean-Guy Bourgeois and Carol Smale (respondents/appellants)

(C56885; 2014 ONCA 574)

Indexed As: Boily et al. v. Carleton Condominium Corp. No. 145 et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Epstein, Lauwers and Pardu, JJ.A.

August 6, 2014.

Summary:

After necessary repairs to the underground garage of a mid-1970s condominium complex, the landscaping outside the complex required restoration. The board of directors proposed a new design. Several condominium owners objected to the design and wanted the landscaping restored to the way it was before the repairs. The dispute led to litigation. In a 2011 endorsement, Beaudoin, J., ordered the board and the condominium (the appellants) to "reinstate the Courtyard as it existed after the repairs to the garage". No order reflecting the endorsement was issued and entered. The condominium owners asserted that the appellants were in contempt of the order.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported at [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 1467, found the appellants in contempt of the endorsement, ordered them to restore the landscaping to the original design and ordered the individual appellants to bear the costs personally. The appellants appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Pardu, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the order requiring the individual appellants to bear the costs of the restoration and replacing it with a fine on each of the individual appellants of $7,500 to be paid to the corporation.

Editor's Note: For decisions on costs involving these parties, see [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 1324 and [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 2352.

Contempt - Topic 683

What constitutes contempt - Judgments and orders - Requirement of clear and unambiguous order - After necessary repairs to the underground garage of a mid-1970s condominium complex, the landscaping outside the complex required restoration - The board of directors proposed a new design - Several condominium owners objected to the design and wanted the landscaping restored to the way it was before the repairs - The dispute led to litigation - In a 2011 endorsement, Beaudoin, J., ordered the board and the condominium (the appellants) to "reinstate the Courtyard as it existed after the repairs to the garage" - No order reflecting the endorsement was issued and entered - Subsequently, Beaudoin, J., found the appellants in contempt of the endorsement - On appeal, the appellants asserted that Beaudoin, J., had erred in finding that the terms of the endorsement were sufficiently clear and unequivocal to justify a finding of contempt - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The problem was created by Beaudoin, J.'s use of the words "Courtyard" and "landscaping" - However, the appellants' suggestion that the endorsement could be interpreted as limiting the restoration obligation to a certain limited area (the Courtyard) was not supported by the record and was illogical - Interpreting the restoration provision in the context of the endorsement as a whole was sufficient to satisfy the court that the obligations imposed were clear and unambiguous - Further, until they heard of the contempt motion, the appellants conducted themselves as though they had no difficulty understanding the endorsement and only attempted to justify the deviations they had made - Finally, in refusing to approve the draft order from the endorsement, the appellants did not take the position that it was unclear, but that it was not possible to reinstate the landscaping - There was no reason to interfere with Beaudoin, J.'s conclusion that the endorsement was clear and unambiguous - See paragraphs 53 to 70.

Contempt - Topic 3301

Punishment - General (incl. considerations) - After necessary repairs to the underground garage of a mid-1970s condominium complex, the landscaping outside the complex required restoration - The board of directors proposed a new design - Several condominium owners objected to the design and wanted the landscaping restored to the way it was before the repairs - The dispute led to litigation - In a 2011 endorsement, Beaudoin, J., ordered the board and the condominium (the appellants) to "reinstate the Courtyard as it existed after the repairs to the garage" - Subsequently, Beaudoin, J., found the appellants in contempt of the endorsement, ordered them to restore the landscaping to the original design and ordered the individual appellants to bear the costs personally - The appellants appealed from the penalty - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as to the order to restore the landscaping to its original design - The order did not mandate the appellants to perform the impossible - Even if it had, the remedy was to appeal, not to ignore the order - Further, rule 60.11(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure gave the court broad powers in responding to a finding of contempt - There was no reason for interfering with this aspect of the remedy - See paragraphs 81 to 89.

Contempt - Topic 3301

Punishment - General (incl. considerations) - After necessary repairs to the underground garage of a mid-1970s condominium complex, the landscaping outside the complex required restoration - The board of directors proposed a new design - Several condominium owners objected to the design and wanted the landscaping restored to the way it was before the repairs - The dispute led to litigation - In a 2011 endorsement, Beaudoin, J., ordered the board and the condominium (the appellants) to "reinstate the Courtyard as it existed after the repairs to the garage" - Subsequently, Beaudoin, J., found the appellants in contempt of the endorsement, ordered them to restore the landscaping to the original design and ordered the individual appellants to bear the costs personally - The appellants appealed from the penalty - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the order requiring the individual appellants to bear the costs of the restoration and replacing it with a fine on each of the individual appellants of $7,500 to be paid to the corporation - The court discussed the principle of proportionality in determining an appropriate sentence for civil contempt - Here, the individual appellants' contemptuous conduct had to be considered in light of the fact that there was no evidence that they were motivated by personal gain, vengeance or any reason other than that they felt that they knew what was best - See paragraphs 90 to 101.

Contempt - Topic 3301

Punishment - General (incl. considerations) - After necessary repairs to the underground garage of a mid-1970s condominium complex, the landscaping outside the complex required restoration - The board of directors proposed a new design - Several condominium owners objected to the design and wanted the landscaping restored to the way it was before the repairs - The dispute led to litigation - In a 2011 endorsement, Beaudoin, J., ordered the board and the condominium (the appellants) to "reinstate the Courtyard as it existed after the repairs to the garage" - Subsequently, Beaudoin, J., found the appellants in contempt of the endorsement, ordered them to restore the landscaping to the original design and ordered the individual appellants to bear the costs personally - The appellants appealed from the penalty - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the order requiring the individual appellants to bear the costs of the restoration and replacing it with a fine on each of the individual appellants of $7,500 to be paid to the corporation - The court discussed mitigating and aggravating factors in terms of determining a fit sentence for the contemptuous conduct here - See paragraphs 102 to 104.

Contempt - Topic 3301

Punishment - General (incl. considerations) - After necessary repairs to the underground garage of a mid-1970s condominium complex, the landscaping outside the complex required restoration - The board of directors proposed a new design - Several condominium owners objected to the design and wanted the landscaping restored to the way it was before the repairs - The dispute led to litigation - In a 2011 endorsement, Beaudoin, J., ordered the board and the condominium (the appellants) to "reinstate the Courtyard as it existed after the repairs to the garage" - Subsequently, Beaudoin, J., found the appellants in contempt of the endorsement, ordered them to restore the landscaping to the original design and ordered the individual appellants to bear the costs personally - The appellants appealed from the penalty - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the order requiring the individual appellants to bear the costs of the restoration and replacing it with a fine on each of the individual appellants of $7,500 to be paid to the corporation - The court discussed the principle of deterrence in determining an appropriate sentence for civil contempt - Here, context was of particular importance as the case engaged the broader issue of the governance of condominium corporations - The penalty should not be so onerous that it deterred unit owners from serving on condominium boards - See paragraphs 105 to 107.

Contempt - Topic 3301

Punishment - General (incl. considerations) - After necessary repairs to the underground garage of a mid-1970s condominium complex, the landscaping outside the complex required restoration - The board of directors proposed a new design - Several condominium owners objected to the design and wanted the landscaping restored to the way it was before the repairs - The dispute led to litigation - In a 2011 endorsement, Beaudoin, J., ordered the board and the condominium (the appellants) to "reinstate the Courtyard as it existed after the repairs to the garage" - Subsequently, Beaudoin, J., found the appellants in contempt of the endorsement, ordered them to restore the landscaping to the original design and ordered the individual appellants to bear the costs personally - The appellants appealed from the penalty - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the order requiring the individual appellants to bear the costs of the restoration and replacing it with a fine on each of the individual appellants of $7,500 to be paid to the corporation - Beaudoin, J., erred in principle in focussing on the costs that his restoration order would impose on all of the condominium unit owners, rather than on deterrence - In sentencing, the relevant conduct was the wilful disregard of the court's authority - Civil contempt proceedings were not to have or appear to have the function of a civil action in tort or contract - See paragraphs 129 to 132.

Contempt - Topic 3303

Punishment - Rules applicable - [See first Contempt - Topic 3301 ].

Contempt - Topic 3315

Punishment - Fines - After necessary repairs to the underground garage of a mid-1970s condominium complex, the landscaping outside the complex required restoration - The board of directors proposed a new design - Several condominium owners objected to the design and wanted the landscaping restored to the way it was before the repairs - The dispute led to litigation - In a 2011 endorsement, Beaudoin, J., ordered the board and the condominium (the appellants) to "reinstate the Courtyard as it existed after the repairs to the garage" - Subsequently, Beaudoin, J., found the appellants in contempt of the endorsement, ordered them to restore the landscaping to the original design and ordered the individual appellants to bear the costs personally - The appellants appealed from the penalty - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the order requiring the individual appellants to bear the costs of the restoration and replacing it with a fine on each of the individual appellants of $7,500 to be paid to the corporation - The court observed that civil contempt awards in Canada ranged between $1,500 and $5,000 - Significant fines had been imposed only in particularly egregious cases and/or where the conduct was motivated by personal gain - More substantial penalties might be imposed where there had been a lengthy course of disobedience and where the contemnors had not purged their conduct - See paragraphs 108 to 112.

Contempt - Topic 3315

Punishment - Fines - After necessary repairs to the underground garage of a mid-1970s condominium complex, the landscaping outside the complex required restoration - The board of directors proposed a new design - Several condominium owners objected to the design and wanted the landscaping restored to the way it was before the repairs - The dispute led to litigation - In a 2011 endorsement, Beaudoin, J., ordered the board and the condominium (the appellants) to "reinstate the Courtyard as it existed after the repairs to the garage" - Subsequently, Beaudoin, J., found the appellants in contempt of the endorsement, ordered them to restore the landscaping to the original design and ordered the individual appellants to bear the costs personally - The appellants appealed from the penalty - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the order requiring the individual appellants to bear the costs of the restoration and replacing it with a fine on each of the individual appellants of $7,500 to be paid to the corporation - One of the factors to be taken into account in determining a fit sentence for contempt was the particular contemnor's ability to pay - This was so that the amount was neither trivial nor unduly punitive - Here, each individual appellant was fined approximately $100,000 without evidence that would have enabled the court to assess the impact of that - The financial penalty imposed was unfit - See paragraphs 133 to 136.

Contempt - Topic 3315.1

Punishment - Monetary awards - [See fifth Contempt - Topic 3301 ].

Contempt - Topic 5103

Practice - Hearing - Procedure - After necessary repairs to the underground garage of a mid-1970s condominium complex, the landscaping outside the complex required restoration - The board of directors proposed a new design - Several condominium owners objected to the design and wanted the landscaping restored to the way it was before the repairs - The dispute led to litigation - In a 2011 endorsement, Beaudoin, J., ordered the board and the condominium (the appellants) to "reinstate the Courtyard as it existed after the repairs to the garage" - Subsequently, Beaudoin, J., found the appellants in contempt of the endorsement, ordered them to restore the landscaping to the original design and ordered the individual appellants to bear the costs personally - The appellants appealed from the penalty - The Ontario Court of Appeal made several comments about the conduct of the contempt hearing - Here, liability and penalty were combined into a single hearing - The failure to bifurcate the hearing caused or contributed to unfairness in that (a) evidence relevant to liability appeared to have been considered in the penalty phase; (b) the appellants had no opportunity to purge their contempt, which might have been relevant to mitigation; and (c) the parties had no opportunity to prepare for the sentence hearing - Although the failure to bifurcate was not advanced as a ground of appeal, it did affect the degree of deference that the court was to pay to the financial penalty imposed - See paragraphs 120 to 128.

Guarantee and Indemnity - Topic 7048

Indemnity - Duties of indemnitee - Duty of good faith - After necessary repairs to the underground garage of a mid-1970s condominium complex, the landscaping outside the complex required restoration - The board of directors proposed a new design - Several condominium owners objected to the design and wanted the landscaping restored to the way it was before the repairs - The dispute led to litigation - In a 2011 endorsement, Beaudoin, J., ordered the board and the condominium (the appellants) to "reinstate the Courtyard as it existed after the repairs to the garage" - Subsequently, Beaudoin, J., found the appellants in contempt of the endorsement, ordered them to restore the landscaping to the original design and ordered the individual appellants to bear the costs personally - The appellants appealed from the penalty - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the order requiring the individual appellants to bear the costs of the restoration and replacing it with a fine on each of the individual appellants of $7,500 to be paid to the corporation - The court rejected the individual appellants' argument that, under s. 38 of the Condominium Act, they were entitled to indemnity from the condominium corporation for the financial penalty - In their deliberate violation of a clear court order, the individual appellants failed to act in good faith - See paragraphs 137 to 140.

Practice - Topic 9031

Appeals - Evidence on appeal - Admission of "new evidence" or "fresh evidence" - After necessary repairs to the underground garage of a mid-1970s condominium complex, the landscaping outside the complex required restoration - The board of directors proposed a new design - Several condominium owners objected to the design and wanted the landscaping restored to the way it was before the repairs - The dispute led to litigation - In a 2011 endorsement, Beaudoin, J., ordered the board and the condominium (the appellants) to "reinstate the Courtyard as it existed after the repairs to the garage" - Subsequently, Beaudoin, J., found the appellants in contempt of the endorsement, ordered them to restore the landscaping to the original design and ordered the individual appellants to bear the costs personally - The appellants appealed from the penalty and sought to adduce fresh evidence on the appeal, consisting of an estimate of the cost of restoring the landscaping (over $350,000) - The Ontario Court of Appeal denied the motion to adduce fresh evidence - In the course of the hearing of the contempt motion, it was understood that the restoration costs could be in excess of several hundred thousand dollars - The detailed estimates that the appellants sought to put before the court added nothing but specific evidentiary support for information that the court was already aware of - It would not have altered Beaudoin, J.'s decision - See paragraphs 114 to 119.

Real Property - Topic 8866.2

Condominiums - Corporation - General - Power to make addition, alteration or improvement to common elements or change in corporation's assets - After necessary repairs to the underground garage of a mid-1970s condominium complex, the landscaping outside the complex required restoration - The board of directors proposed a new design - Several condominium owners objected to the design and wanted the landscaping restored to the way it was before the repairs - The dispute led to litigation - In a 2011 endorsement, Beaudoin, J., ordered the board and the condominium (the appellants) to "reinstate the Courtyard as it existed after the repairs to the garage" - Subsequently, Beaudoin, J., found the appellants in contempt of the endorsement - On appeal, the appellants asserted that Beaudoin, J., had erred in failing to take into account the board's statutory authority under s. 97 of the Condominium Act to make non-substantial changes and repairs to the common elements - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The endorsement mandated the restoration of the exterior of the complex to its original design - While the individual appellants' authority, as a board, to manage the common elements in accordance with the Act was otherwise unfettered, they had to comply with the endorsement - That decision was clear - See paragraphs 74 and 75.

Cases Noticed:

Services aux enfants et adultes de Prescott-Russell v. N.G. et al. (2006), 214 O.A.C. 146; 82 O.R.(3d) 686 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Sweda Farms Ltd. v. Ontario Egg Producers et al., [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 3650; 2011 ONSC 3650, affd. [2012] O.A.C. Uned. 285; 2012 ONCA 337, leave to appeal refused (2012), 443 N.R. 393 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

Power v. Jackman (2008), 278 N.S.R.(2d) 31; 886 A.P.R. 31; 2008 NSSC 389, refd to. [para. 33].

Sussex Group Ltd. v. 3933938 Canada Inc. et al., [2003] O.T.C. 664; 124 A.C.W.S.(3d) 274 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 39].

Garley v. Gabai-Maiato, 2006 ONCJ 28, refd to. [para. 39].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Torroni et al. (2009), 246 O.A.C. 212; 94 O.R.(3d) 614; 2009 ONCA 85, refd to. [paras. 53, 150].

Sabourin and Sun Group of Companies v. Laiken (2013), 310 O.A.C. 209; 367 D.L.R.(4th) 415; 2013 ONCA 530, refd to. [para. 54].

Laiken v. Carey - see Sabourin and Sun Group of Companies v. Laiken.

Culligan Canada Ltd. et al. v. Fettes et al. (2010), 366 Sask.R. 24; 506 W.A.C. 24; 326 D.L.R.(4th) 463; 2010 SKCA 151, refd to. [paras. 54, 152].

Zhang v. Chau, 229 D.L.R.(4th) 298 (Q.C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Baxter Laboratories of Canada Ltd., Travenol Laboratories Inc. and Baxter Travenol Laboratories Inc. et al. v. Cutter (Canada) Ltd., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 388; 50 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 59, 176].

British Columbia Forest Products Ltd. v. Lawson, [1988] B.C.J. No. 1619 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].

Vidéotron Ltée et Premier Choix: TVEC Inc. v. Industries Microlec produits électroniques Inc. et autres, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 1065; 141 N.R. 281; 50 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 79].

Poje v. Attorney General (B.C.), [1953] 1 S.C.R. 516, refd to. [para. 79].

Frontenac Ventures Corp. v. Ardoch Algonquin First Nation et al. (2008), 239 O.A.C. 257; 91 O.R.(3d) 1; 2008 ONCA 534, refd to. [para. 79].

United Nurses of Alberta v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 901; 125 A.R. 241; 14 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 79].

Echostar Communications Corp. et al. v. Rodgers et al., [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 2164; 2010 ONSC 2164, refd to. [para. 90].

Sussex Group Ltd. v. Fangeat, [2003] O.T.C. 781 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 90].

Builders Energy Services Ltd. et al. v. Paddock (2009), 457 A.R. 266; 457 W.A.C. 266; 2009 ABCA 153, refd to. [para. 90].

York (Regional Municipality) et al. v. Schmidt, [2008] O.T.C. Uned. P95 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 91].

1984 Enterprises Inc. v. Strider Resources Ltd. et al. (2013), 299 Man.R.(2d) 251; 590 W.A.C. 251; 25 C.L.R.(4th) 219; 2013 MBCA 100, refd to. [para. 98].

Cornwall (Public Inquiry) v. Dunlop (2008), 290 D.L.R.(4th) 699 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 105].

Tilco Plastics Ltd. v. Skurjat et al. (1966), 57 D.L.R.(2d) 596 (Ont. H.C.), affd. [1967] 1 O.R. 609 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1967] 1 O.R. 609 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 105].

Mendlowitz & Associates Inc. et al. v. Chiang et al., [2007] O.T.C. 522; [2007] O.T.C. 524, revsd. (2009), 257 O.A.C. 64; 93 O.R.(3d) 483; 2009 ONCA 3, refd to. [para. 108].

Chiang (Trustee of) v. Chiang - see Mendlowitz & Associates Inc. et al. v. Chiang et al.

Chicago Blower Co. v. 141209 Canada Ltd. and Transregent Holdings Ltd. et al. (1987), 44 Man.R.(2d) 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 108].

Baxter Travenol Laboratories Inc. v. Cutter (Canada) Ltd., [1987] 2 F.C. 557; 81 N.R. 220 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 108].

Health Employers Association of British Columbia v. Facilities Subsector Bargaining Association et al., [2004] B.C.T.C. 762; 2004 BCSC 762, refd to. [para. 109].

IMAX Corp. v. Trotum Systems Inc. et al., [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 743; 2013 ONSC 743, refd to. [para. 110].

Mercedes-Benz Financial v. Kovacevic, [2009] O.T.C. Uned. 521 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Palmer (1980), 30 N.R. 181; 50 C.C.C.(2d) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 115].

College of Optometrists (Ont.) v. SHS Optical Ltd. et al. (2008), 241 O.A.C. 225; 93 O.R.(3d) 139; 2008 ONCA 685, refd to. [para. 121].

R. v. B.E.S.T. Plating Shoppe Ltd. and Siapas (1987), 21 O.A.C. 62; 59 O.R.(2d) 145 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

Royal Bank of Canada v. Yates Holding Inc. (2007), 33 C.B.R.(5th) 268 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 130].

Merck & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc. (2001), 206 F.T.R. 51; 2001 FCT 589, revsing in part (2003), 305 N.R. 68; 227 D.L.R.(4th) 106; 2003 FCA 234, refd to. [para. 130].

Police Services Board (Niagara) v. Curran, [2002] O.T.C. Uned. 48; 57 O.R.(3d) 631 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 133].

Apotex Fermentation Inc. et al. v. Novopharm Ltd. et al. (1998), 129 Man.R.(2d) 161; 180 W.A.C. 161; 162 D.L.R.(4th) 111 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 133].

Bennett v. Bennett Environmental Inc. (2009), 264 O.A.C. 198; 2009 ONCA 198, dist. [para. 137].

Sweda Farms Ltd. v. Ontario Egg Producers et al., [2012] O.A.C. Uned. 285; 2012 ONCA 337, refd to. [para. 154].

Jaskhs Enterprises Inc. et al. v. Indus Corp. et al., [2004] O.T.C. 859 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 163].

Jaskhs Enterprises v. 1444707 Ontario Ltd. - see Jaskhs Enterprises Inc. et al. v. Indus Corp. et al.

Telus Mobility v. Telecommunications Workers Union (2002), 220 F.T.R. 291; 2002 FCT 656, refd to. [para. 167].

Dumbrell v. Regional Group of Companies Inc. et al. (2007), 220 O.A.C. 64; 85 O.R.(3d) 616; 2007 ONCA 59, refd to. [para. 172].

SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment LLC v. Marineland of Canada Inc. (2011), 282 O.A.C. 339; 2011 ONCA 616, refd to. [para. 173].

Eli Lilly & Co. et al. v. Novopharm Ltd. et al., [1998] 2 S.C.R. 129; 227 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 174].

Doucet-Boudreau et al. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education) et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 3; 312 N.R. 1; 218 N.S.R.(2d) 311; 687 A.P.R. 311; 2003 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 179].

St. Elizabeth Home Society v. Hamilton (City) et al. (2008), 237 O.A.C. 25; 89 O.R.(3d) 81; 2008 ONCA 182, refd to. [para. 180].

Clements, Re (1877), 46 L.J. Ch. 375 (Eng. C.A.), refd to. [para. 180].

R. v. Cohn (1984), 4 O.A.C. 293; 48 O.R.(2d) 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 180].

Centre commercial Les Rivières ltée v. Jean bleu inc., 2012 QCCA 1663, refd to. [para. 180].

Rocca Dickson Andreis Inc. et al. v. Andreis, [2013] O.A.C. Uned. 634; 2013 ONSC 5508 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 180].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Contempt of Court, Working Paper No. 20 (1977), p. 49 [para. 180].

Miller, Jeffrey, The Law of Contempt in Canada (1997), pp. 88 [para. 29]; 131 [para. 91].

Counsel:

Janice B. Payne, for the appellants, Dan Litchinsky, Avis Miller, Jean-Guy Bourgeois and Carol Smale;

Antoni Casalinuovo and Patricia Elia, for the appellant, Carleton Condominium Corporation 145;

Rodrigue Escayola and Jocelyn Duquette, for the respondent, Juan Escudero.

This appeal was heard on December 9, 2013, by Epstein, Lauwers and Pardu, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. On August 6, 2014, the court's decision was released with the following opinions:

Epstein, J.A. (Lauwers, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 149;

Pardu, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 150 to 186.