Contempt of Court Proceedings

• Author: David A. Potts; Erin Stoik
• Pages: 56-65

56

 6

Contempt of Court Proceedings

Contempt of court proceedings may arise in anti-SLAPP proceedings if a

party refuses to comply with an order of the court. While none have occurred

in anti-SLAPP motions as of the date of the publication of this text, con-

tempt proceedings arising out of breaches of orders made in cyberlibel

actions occur frequently throughout the common law world. A summary of

contempt proceedings will be of value to judges and lawyers who face this

situation in anti-SLAPP proceedings in the years to come.

THE CANADIAN COMMON LAW OF CIVIL CONTEMPT

The law was stated authoritatively by Cromwell J in Carey v Laiken, [2015] 2

SCR 79, 2015 SCC 17 at paras 30–37:

[30] Contempt of court “rest[s] on the power of the court to uphold its dignity

and process. . . . The rule of law is directly dependent on the ability of the

courts to enforce their process and maintain their dignity and respect”: United

Nurses of Alberta v. Alberta (Attorney General), 1992 CanLII 99 (SCC), [1992]

1 S.C.R. 901, at p. 931. It is well established that the purpose of a contempt

order is “f‌irst and foremost a declaration that a party has acted in def‌iance of

a court order”: Pro Swing Inc. v. Elta Golf Inc., 2006 SCC 52, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 612,

at para. 35, cited in Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Torroni, 2009 ONCA

85, 94 O.R. (3d) 614, at para. 20.

[31] The common law has developed to recognize two forms of contempt

of court: criminal contempt and civil contempt. The distinction, which the

parties to this appeal accept, rests on the element of public def‌iance accom-

panying criminal contempt: see, e.g., United Nurses, at p. 931; Poje v. Attorney

General for British Columbia, 1953 CanLII 34 (SCC), [1953] 1 S.C.R. 516, at p. 522.

With civil contempt, where there is no element of public def‌iance, the matter