Chiang (Re), 257 OAC 64

JudgeLaskin, Simmons and Armstrong, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Ontario)
Case DateJanuary 07, 2009
JurisdictionOntario
Citations257 OAC 64;174 ACWS (3d) 105;(2009), 257 O.A.C. 64 (CA);[2009] CarswellOnt 28;2009 ONCA 3;305 DLR (4th) 655;[2009] OJ No 41 (QL);93 OR (3d) 483;78 CPC (6th) 110;49 CBR (5th) 1

Mendlowitz & Assoc. Inc. v. Chiang (2009), 257 O.A.C. 64 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] O.A.C. TBEd. DE.048

In The Matter Of the Bankruptcy of Jay Tien Chiang of the Town of Richmond Hill, in the Regional Municipality of York in the Province of Ontario

Mendlowitz & Associates Inc. in its capacity as trustee in bankruptcy of Jay Tien Chiang, Korea Data Systems, Co. Ltd., also known as K.D.S. Korea, and Korea Data Systems (USA), Inc. (applicants/respondents) v. Jay Tien Chiang, Christina Chiang, also known as Suh Mei Tasi, Chun Chun Wu, Jie Chu Wu, Chen Cheng Yueh Tsai, Yu Chang Chiang, also known as Y.C. Chiang, En Fu Chiang, Brenda Chang, Samson Chang, David Cheng, Everview Inc., 961266 Ontario Inc., 1204360 Ontario Inc., 1243723 Ontario Inc., Aamazing Technologies Inc., Wen Wang Chiang also known as Wen Chiang also known as Wen Wang, Crystalview Technology Corp., E.C. Holdings Ltd., Telepower International (Canada) Inc. and Best Buy Electronics Inc., Su Feng Tsai also known as Tsai Su Feng, Tsai Zheng Li, Tsai Zheng Ying, Asia Pacific Gateway (H.K) Ltd., Century Group Holdings Ltd., and Albany Investments Ltd. (defendants/appellants)

Mendlowitz & Associates Inc. in its capacity as trustee in bankruptcy of Jay Tien Chiang, Korea Data Systems, Co. Ltd., also known as K.D.S. Korea and Korea Data Systems (USA), Inc. (applicants/respondents) and Jay Tien Chiang, also known as Jay Chiang, also known as Tienchien Chiang, and Ontario Parole and Earned Release Board (defendants/appellants)

(C47106; 2009 ONCA 3)

Indexed As: Mendlowitz & Associates Inc. et al. v. Chiang et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Laskin, Simmons and Armstrong, JJ.A.

January 7, 2009.

Summary:

In 1993, the defendant Jay Chiang acknowledged that he owed the plaintiff $8.5 million. Through various actions in various jurisdictions, the plaintiff attempted to recover the money, with no success. Jay filed for bankruptcy. In 2003, Jay and his wife, Christina, consented to a declaratory order that they were in contempt of six previous court orders in Ontario. Under the terms of the consent order, the Chiangs were given an opportunity to purge their contempt by complying with a series of undertakings, each of which required disclosure of financial information. Failing compliance, each was to be incarcerated for seven days. After a trial in 2005, the Chiangs were given a further 90 days to fully comply. In 2007, the Chiangs still had not fulfilled their undertakings.

The Ontario Superior Court, in decisions reported at [2007] O.T.C. Uned. 522, and at [2007] O.T.C. Uned. 524, concluded that the Chiangs remained in contempt. The court sentenced Jay to imprisonment for one year, and Christina, to imprisonment for eight months. When Ontario's Parole and Earned Release Board granted Jay parole, the court quashed the order and issued a replacement warrant of committal. The Chiangs appealed the trial judge's finding that they had not purged their contempt. They also appealed their sentences of imprisonment. Finally, they appealed the decision to quash Jay's parole and to issue a replacement warrant of committal. KDS submitted that the appeal should not be considered until the Chiangs purged their contempt.

The Ontario Court of Appeal decided to hear the appeal. The court set aside the sentences imposed by the trial judge, and substituted a sentence of seven days' imprisonment for each. The court also declared that Jay had served the sentence, on the sole ground that the terms of the 2003 consent order did not entitle the trial judge to impose a first sentence of imprisonment greater than seven days. In all other respects, the court dismissed the appeal.

Contempt - Topic 503

What constitutes contempt - General principles - Civil and criminal contempt distinguished - The defendants breached orders requiring financial disclosure - The Ontario Court of Appeal reviewed the law of contempt of court - "Our law has distinguished between civil and criminal contempt of court. A person who breaches a court order, other than an order for payment of money, commits civil contempt of court ... Where the breach is accompanied by an element of public defiance or public depreciation of the court's authority, the contempt becomes criminal ... The distinction between civil and criminal contempt is not always clear cut. Both have a common root: only by having the ability to exercise the power of contempt can judges maintain respect for our courts and for the rule of law. Moreover, recent case law has recognized that even in purely private litigation, the breach of a court order and the resulting sanction for contempt invariably reflect public disrespect for the authority of the court ... Nonetheless, the distinction persists and the case before us is undoubtedly a case of civil contempt of court. In civil contempt, the court's emphasis is less about punishment and more about coercion - attempting to obtain compliance with the court's order. Still, civil contempt bears the imprint of the criminal law. Civil contempt must be made out to the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And, a person found in civil contempt of court may be committed to jail or face any other sanction available for a criminal offence, such as a fine or community service" - See paragraphs 8 to 11.

Contempt - Topic 505

What constitutes contempt - General principles - Civil contempt - [See Contempt - Topic 503 ].

Contempt - Topic 505

What constitutes contempt - General principles - Civil contempt - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the defendant civil contemnor was not eligible for parole under Ontario's Ministry of Correctional Services Act (Ont.) - Section 35 of that Act authorized the provincial parole board to grant parole to an inmate convicted of an "offence" - The court did not agree with the defendant's submission that civil contempt was an "offence" under s. 96(1) of the Courts of Justice Act ("Courts shall administer concurrently all rules of equity and the common law") - "Section 96 does not create an offence. Indeed, civil contempt of court is not codified in any statute. It is a common law offence ... Thus, although civil contempt bears the imprint of the criminal law, it remains outside the ambit of s. 35"- Removing the parole board's jurisdiction to grant parole for civil contempt of court had a sound rationale - The main purpose of sentencing for civil contempt was coercive; namely, to promote compliance with the court's orders - See paragraphs 113 to 117.

Contempt - Topic 684

What constitutes contempt - Judgments and orders - Disobedience of or non-compliance with - [See Contempt - Topic 503 ].

Contempt - Topic 3301

Punishment - General (incl. considerations) - The plaintiffs moved for contempt after the defendants deliberately disobeyed court orders for financial disclosure - A 2003 consent order provided that if the defendants did not comply with their undertakings to disclose, each would be incarcerated for seven days - The order provided for a further period of incarceration if the defendants continued to refuse to comply with their undertakings - After a 2007 trial, the trial judge concluded that the defendants had not complied with all of the undertakings, and sentenced one defendant to imprisonment for one year, and the other, to imprisonment for eight months - The Ontario Earned Release and Parole Board granted one defendant parole - The trial judge quashed the decision and signed a replacement warrant - The Ontario Court of Appeal did not accept the defendants' submission that the trial judge misunderstood the proceedings - The defendants were given an opportunity to purge their contempt by demonstrating compliance with their undertakings - Until they did so, they remained in contempt and subject to additional sanctions - The plaintiff was not required to establish a new contempt; nor was the trial judge hearing a fresh motion for contempt - She was conducting an inquiry into the appropriate sanction, and a vital consideration was whether the defendants had purged their contempt by answering their undertakings - See paragraphs 39 to 49.

Contempt - Topic 3304

Punishment - Purging of contempt - In 2003, the defendants consented to a declaratory order that they were in contempt of six previous court orders - Under the terms of the consent order, the defendants were given an opportunity to purge their contempt by complying with seventeen undertakings that required financial disclosure - In 2007, a trial judge determined that the defendants had not fulfilled six of the undertakings, and therefore had not purged their contempt - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the trial judge's finding that the defendants had not answered the undertakings because they had not given any real disclosure of their assets - The six undertakings were critical because they focused on the two most important aspects of the defendants' unexplained conduct; namely, the disappearance of approximately $4.6 million from the business that one of the defendants controlled, and the whereabouts of between $8 million to $10 million that the defendants had sent to their family members in California and Taiwan - See paragraphs 53 to 55.

Contempt - Topic 3304

Punishment - Purging of contempt - The defendants consented to a declaratory order that they were in contempt of six previous court orders - Under the terms of the consent order, the defendants were given an opportunity to purge their contempt by complying with seventeen undertakings that required financial disclosure - Two undertakings provided that the defendants were to disclose the whereabouts of between $8 million to $10 million that the defendants had sent to their family members in California and Taiwan - The consent order required the defendants to "use all reasonable means necessary to compel their family members to assist them" - The trial judge rejected the defendants' contention that they had used their best efforts, but that their family refused to cooperate - The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that the defendants had not purged their contempt - The context in which the defendants gave the undertakings showed that they unequivocally agreed to disclose their assets and, in doing so, fully expected their family to cooperate - Failing all else, the defendants were obliged to take court proceedings to compel members of their family to assist them - Further, "when a party gives an undertaking to the court, that party implicitly represents to the court that it is able to fulfill its undertaking. Both the court and the opposite party are entitled to rely on that implicit representation" - Finally, the representation gained added force when the undertaking obliged the party giving it to obtain information from close family members - See paragraphs 60 to 67.

Contempt - Topic 3304

Punishment - Purging of contempt - The defendants consented to a declaratory order that they were in contempt of six previous court orders - Under the terms of the consent order, the defendants were given an opportunity to purge their contempt by complying with seventeen undertakings that required financial disclosure - Two undertakings provided that the defendants were to disclose the whereabouts of between $8 million to $10 million that the defendants had sent to their family members in California and Taiwan - The consent order required the defendants to "use all reasonable means necessary to compel their family members to assist them" - The defendants contended at trial that they had used their best efforts, but that their family refused to cooperate - The trial judge rejected that contention and held that the defendants had not purged their contempt - The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge - The defendants' relationship with their family undermined their submission that the trial judge turned her rejection of their evidence into positive proof that they had control over their family - The trial judge's conclusion that the defendants directly controlled the actions of their family was supported by a large body of evidence - All of that evidence was unchallenged and all of it had at its core the very close relationship that existed between the defendants and their family - See paragraphs 68 to 70.

Contempt - Topic 3305

Punishment - Mitigation - [See second Contempt - Topic 3325 ].

Contempt - Topic 3308

Punishment - Attachment or committal - General - Under the terms of a 2003 consent order, Jay and his wife, Christina, were given an opportunity to purge their contempt by complying with a series of undertakings - Failing compliance, each was to be incarcerated for seven days - In 2005, the Chiangs were given a further 90 days to fully comply - In 2007, the trial judge sentenced Jay to imprisonment for one year and Christina, to imprisonment for eight months - Upon Jay's release, it was directed that he and Christina be brought before the trial judge with a view to deciding whether Christina should be released earlier - The Ontario Earned Release and Parole Board granted parole to Jay - The trial judge quashed the decision and issued a replacement warrant of committal - The Ontario Court of Appeal declined to give effect to the Chiangs' submission that the trial judge had no jurisdiction to issue a replacement warrant - "The issuance of a warrant is an administrative act. The issuing judge can amend the warrant after it has been issued to ensure that it reflects the judge's original intention ... That is all that happened here" - The replacement warrant did not change the trial judge's original sentence, but gave effect to it - See paragraphs 121 to 125.

Contempt - Topic 3324

Punishment - Imprisonment - General - Under the terms of a 2003 consent order, Jay and Christina Chiang were given an opportunity to purge their contempt by complying with a series of undertakings - Failing compliance, each was to be incarcerated for seven days - In 2005, the Chiangs were given a further 90 days to fully comply - In 2007, the trial judge sentenced Jay to imprisonment for one year and Christina, to imprisonment for eight months - The Ontario Earned Release and Parole Board granted parole to Jay - The trial judge quashed the Board's decision for lack of jurisdiction and issued a replacement warrant of committal specifying that Jay was to return to court - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was correct in concluding that the Board acted without jurisdiction - Under the complementary federal and provincial statutory regimes, a provincial parole board had no jurisdiction to grant parole to a person serving a custodial sentence for civil contempt of court if the sentence included a requirement that the offender return to court - Both regimes recognized that civil contemnors remained under the jurisdiction of the court - Parole was at odds with the coercive or incentive-based purpose of sentencing for civil contempt - The regimes dovetailed with the court's wide discretion under rule 60.11, giving it an ongoing supervisory role over a civil contemnor - See paragraphs 104 to 120.

Contempt - Topic 3325

Punishment - Imprisonment - When appropriate - In 2003, Jay and his wife, Christina, consented to a declaratory order that they were in contempt of six previous court orders requiring financial disclosure - Under the terms of the consent order, the Chiangs were given an opportunity to purge their contempt by complying with a series of undertakings - Failing compliance, each was to be incarcerated for seven days - In 2005, the Chiangs were given a further 90 days by Farley, J., to fully comply - In 2007, Lax, J., sentenced Jay to imprisonment for one year, and Christina, to imprisonment for eight months - The Chiangs contended that Lax, J., was not entitled to exceed the sentence of seven days - The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed and set aside the sentence - Lax, J., was bound by the sentence set out in the 2003 consent order - Although Farley, J., could have varied that term in 2005, he did not do so - In 2007, the Chiangs were not on fair notice that for their continued non-compliance they faced a term of imprisonment greater than seven days - The consent order contemplated a sentence beyond seven days only after the Chiangs had first served a seven-day sentence - See paragraphs 93 to 103.

Contempt - Topic 3325

Punishment - Imprisonment - When appropriate - The defendants submitted that the trial judge erred in sentencing Jay Chiang to one year imprisonment and Christine Chiang to eight months' imprisonment - The Chiangs contended that the sentences were excessive - The Ontario Court of Appeal saw no reviewable error in the sentences, assuming that the trial judge was right in her conclusion that she was not confined to the sanction set out in a 2003 consent to a finding of contempt; namely, seven days' imprisonment - But for the consent order, the sentences were "entirely fit" - The court agreed with the trial judge's view of the defendants' conduct and that neither an apology nor a guilty plea were a mitigating factor in this case - The trial judge correctly characterized the apology as "hollow and insincere" and fairly viewed their 2003 consent as purely "tactical" - The array of aggravating factors listed by the trial judge was fully supported by the record - Together, they demonstrated, in the trial judge's words, "a long and woeful record of deliberate disobedience to the court" - Ordinarily, incarceration was a sanction of last resort - However, the contempt was not deserving of leniency - See paragraphs 84 to 92.

Contempt - Topic 5083

Practice - Evidence and proof - Burden of proof - In 2003, the defendants consented to a declaratory order that they were in contempt of six previous court orders - Under the terms of the order, the defendants were given an opportunity to purge their contempt by complying with a series of undertakings - In 2007, a trial judge determined who had the onus to show compliance with the undertakings and to what standard of proof - The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge's approach and with her reasons - The trial judge analogized to sentencing in criminal proceedings - She treated purging one's contempt by showing compliance with an undertaking as equivalent to proving a mitigating factor on sentence - "As an accused in a sentencing proceeding bears the onus of establishing a mitigating factor on a balance of probabilities, she held that the [defendants], too, had to show on a balance of probabilities they had purged their contempt. The trial judge recognized that little authority existed on this question. However, she drew support from the reasons of Cullity J., in Ryan v. Maljkovich ... and from s. 724(3) of the Criminal Code" - See paragraphs 50 to 52.

Contempt - Topic 6000

Appeals - General - [See Contempt - Topic 6021 ].

Contempt - Topic 6021

Appeals - Right of appeal - General - In proceedings that began some fifteen years beforehand, the defendants consented to a declaratory order that they were in contempt of six previous court orders - Under the terms of the 2003 consent order, the defendants were given an opportunity to purge their contempt by complying with a series of undertakings requiring disclosure of financial information - Failing compliance, they were each to be incarcerated for seven days, and faced the prospect of further sanctions - In 2007, a trial judge concluded that the defendants still had not fulfilled their undertakings, and sentenced each of the defendants to terms of imprisonment - When Ontario's Parole and Earned Release Board granted parole to one of the defendants, the trial judge quashed the order and issued a replacement warrant of committal - The plaintiff submitted that the defendants' appeal should not be heard until they had purged their contempt by answering their outstanding undertakings - The Ontario Court of Appeal considered the appeal for three reasons - First, whether the defendants had complied with their undertakings and provided meaningful disclosure was an important issue on the appeal; the court could not resolve that issue without hearing the appeal itself - Second, the defendants' liberty interests were at stake; they had appealed their sentences of imprisonment - Third, by hearing the appeal, the court could bring a measure of certainty, if not finality, to what, on any objective assessment, had been unduly protracted proceedings - See paragraphs 34 to 38.

Criminal Law - Topic 5670.5

Punishments (sentence) - Imprisonment and parole - Parole - Jurisdiction where parole granted - [See Contempt - Topic 3324 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5683

Punishments (sentence) - Memo of conviction or warrant of committal - Amendment of - [See Contempt - Topic 3308 ].

Practice - Topic 305

Parties - General - Undertakings - Duty of party respecting - [See second Contempt - Topic 3304 ].

Practice - Topic 9031

Appeals - Evidence on appeal - Admission of "new evidence" or "fresh evidence" - In support of their appeal, the defendants moved to introduce fresh evidence - The Ontario Court of Appeal began its analysis by noting that, in deciding motions under s. 134(4)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, it "may, in a proper case, receive further evidence" and that it had used two different tests: "either the test in R. v. Palmer [1980, SCC] ... which is the basic test for the admission of fresh evidence in criminal cases, or the test in Sengmueller v. Sengmueller [1994, Ont. C.A.]" - The court considered the various parts under each of the tests, and referred to the cases where the court used each test - On this appeal, it was unnecessary to decide which was the proper test - "The two tests are quite similar, though the last branch of the Sengmueller test may be more stringent than the last branch of the Palmer test" - On either test, the defendants' motion to introduce fresh evidence failed - See paragraphs 73 to 77.

Practice - Topic 9031

Appeals - Evidence on appeal - Admission of "new evidence" or "fresh evidence" - The defendants failed to comply with undertakings that required financial disclosure and thereby failed to purge their contempt - In support of their appeal, the defendants moved to introduce fresh evidence - The proposed fresh evidence consisted of affidavits from their Ontario and California counsel and fell into three categories: the history of one defendant's custody; some of the procedural background of the Ontario and California litigation; and, the defendants' supposed efforts since the order of the trial judge to purge their contempt by answering their undertakings - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the motion - The first two categories, whether fresh or not, added nothing to the appeal; even if admitted, they did not bear on any potentially decisive issue - The third category was contentious - However, the proposed evidence failed to satisfy the last branch of the "Palmer" test: it could not be expected to affect the result - And, therefore, equally, the proposed evidence failed the last branch of the "Sengmueller" (1994, O.A.C.) test: it would not likely be conclusive of an issue in the appeal - None of the proposed evidence provided any new information about two critical undertakings - See paragraphs 72 and 73, 78 to 82.

Cases Noticed:

United Nurses of Alberta v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 901; 135 N.R. 321; 125 A.R. 241; 14 W.A.C. 241; 1992 CanLII 99, refd to. [para. 9].

Vidéotron ltée et Premier Choix: TVEC Inc. v. Industries Microlec Produits éléctroniques Inc. et autres, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 1065; 141 N.R. 281; 50 Q.A.C. 161; 1992 CanLII 29, refd to. [para. 10].

Pro Swing Inc. v. Elta Golf Inc., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 612; 354 N.R. 201; 218 O.A.C. 339; 2006 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 10].

Dickie v. Dickie, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 346; 357 N.R. 196; 221 O.A.C. 394; 2007 SCC 8, refd to. [para. 35].

Braun (Bankrupt), Re (2006), 384 A.R. 80; 367 W.A.C. 80; 262 D.L.R.(4th) 611; 2006 ABCA 23, dist. [para. 40].

Ryan et al. v. Maljkovich, [2001] O.T.C. Uned. 740 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 51].

642947 Ontario Ltd. v. Fleischer et al. (2001), 152 O.A.C. 313; 56 O.R.(3d) 417; 2001 CanLII 8623 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Coutts (S.) et al. (1998), 110 O.A.C. 353; 126 C.C.C.(3d) 545; 1998 CanLII 4212 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1999), 239 N.R. 193; 123 O.A.C. 199 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Palmer, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759; 30 N.R. 181; 1979 CanLII 8, consd. [para. 73].

Sengmueller v. Sengmueller (1994), 69 O.A.C. 312; 17 O.R.(3d) 208; 1994 CanLII 8711 (C.A.), consd. [para. 73].

Oakwell Engineering Ltd. v. Enernorth Industries Inc. (2006), 215 O.A.C. 91; 82 O.R.(3d) 500; 2006 CanLII 31809 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

Leader Media Productions Ltd. v. Sentinel Hill Alliance Atlantis Equipcap Limited Partnership et al. (2008), 237 O.A.C. 81; 90 O.R.(3d) 561; 2008 ONCA 463, refd to. [para. 74].

Country Style Food Services Inc. et al., Re (2002), 158 O.A.C. 30; 2002 CanLII 41751 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

Zesta Engineering Ltd. v. Cloutier et al., [2007] O.A.C. Uned. 301; 2007 ONCA 471, refd to. [para. 74].

Visagie et al. v. TVX Gold Inc. (2000), 132 O.A.C. 231; 49 O.R.(3d) 198; 2000 CanLII 5749 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

Kefeli v. Centennial College of Applied Arts and Technology et al., [2002] O.A.C. Uned. 187; 2002 CanLII 45008 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

Illidge (Bankrupt) et al. v. St. James Securities Inc. et al. (2002), 159 O.A.C. 311; 60 O.R.(3d) 155; 2002 CanLII 44971 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. v. Shapiro, Cohen, Andrews, Finlayson (1998), 107 O.A.C. 209; 38 O.R.(3d) 257; 1998 CanLII 1043 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

Werner v. Warner Auto-Marine Inc. - see Roe v. Warner Auto-Marine Inc. et al.

Roe v. Warner Auto-Marine Inc. et al. (1996), 93 O.A.C. 145 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Taillefer (B.), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 307; 313 N.R. 1; 2003 SCC 70, refd to. [para. 77].

Turkawski et al. v. 738675 Alberta Ltd. et al. (2006), 402 A.R. 150; 2006 ABQB 360, refd to. [para. 116].

Ewing v. Mission Institution (Warden) (1994), 92 C.C.C.(3d) 484; 1994 CanLII 2390 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 123].

R. v. Malicia (2006), 216 O.A.C. 252; 82 O.R.(3d) 772; 2006 CanLII 31804 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 123].

Statutes Noticed:

Civil Procedure Rules (Ont.) - see Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.).

Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-43, sect. 134(4)(b) [para. 73].

Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.), rule 60.11(1) [para. 9]; rule 60.11(5)(a), rule 60.11(8) [para. 118].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sharpe, Robert J., Injunctions and Specific Performance (3rd Ed. 2000), paras. 6.100 [para. 117]; 6.120 [para. 90].

Counsel:

J. Thomas Curry and Marguerite Ethier, for the appellants;

Christopher D. Bredt and Aaron A. Blumenfeld, for the respondents;

Malliha Wilson and Christopher Thompson, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Ontario.

This appeal was heard on February 11 and 12, 2008, by Laskin, Simmons and Armstrong, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following judgment was released by the court on January 7, 2009.

To continue reading

Request your trial
110 practice notes
  • Lymer (Re), 2018 ABQB 859
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • October 22, 2018
    ...if Mr. Lymer has claimed he has now purged his contempt, the onus is on him to establish that on a balance of probabilities: Chiang (Re), 2009 ONCA 3 at paras 50, 52, 305 DLR (4th) 655; Lymer (Re), 2017 ABQB 110 at para 23. [157] Thus, as a first step I will evaluate whether Mr. Lymer has, ......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (March 15 ' 19, 2021)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • March 22, 2021
    ...& 60.11(1), Carey v. Laiken, 2015 SCC 17, United Nurses of Alberta v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 901, Chiang (Re), 2009 ONCA 3, Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Corkery, 2009 ONCA 85, Rocca Dickson Andreis Inc. v. Umberto Andreis, 2013 ONSC 5508 (Div. Ct.), Dare Fo......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Equitable Remedies. Second Edition
    • June 18, 2013
    ...51, 54 Chiang (Trustee of) v. Chiang (2007), 31 C.B.R. (5th) 19, 2007 CanlII 12203 (Ont. S.C.J.), var’d on another point 2009 ONCA 3 ................................. 132, 439, 446, 447 Chicken Farmers of Ontario v. Drost (2005), 258 D.L.R. (4th) 177, 204 O.A.C. 17, [2005] O.J. No. 3973 (Di......
  • Contempt of Court Proceedings
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Guide to the Law and Practice of Anti-SLAPP Proceedings Part I. Background and Context
    • June 13, 2022
    ...¶ 6.100. However, one purpose of sentencing for civil contempt is punishment for breaching a court order: Chiang (Trustee of) v. Chiang , 2009 ONCA 3, 305 D.L.R. (4th) 655, at para. 117. Courts sometimes impose substantial ines to match the gravity of the contempt, to deter the contemnor’s ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
104 cases
  • Sabourin and Sun Group of Companies v. Laiken, [2015] N.R. TBEd. AP.012
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • April 16, 2015
    ...¶ 6.100. However, one purpose of sentencing for civil contempt is punishment for breaching a court order: Chiang (Trustee of) v. Chiang , 2009 ONCA 3, 305 D.L.R. (4th) 655, at para. 117. Courts sometimes impose substantial fines to match the gravity of the contempt, to deter the contemnor's......
  • Jackson v Jackson,
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • September 13, 2022
    ...6.100. However, one purpose of sentencing for civil contempt is punishment for breaching a court order: Chiang (Trustee of) v. Chiang, 2009 ONCA 3, 305 D.L.R. (4th) 655, at para. 117. Courts sometimes impose substantial fines to match the gravity of the contempt, to deter the contemnor ......
  • Recycling Worx Solutions Inc v Hunter, 2018 ABQB 395
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • May 16, 2018
    ...¶ 6.100. However, one purpose of sentencing for civil contempt is punishment for breaching a court order: Chiang (Trustee of) v. Chiang, 2009 ONCA 3 (CanLII), 305 D.L.R. (4th) 655, at para. 117. Courts sometimes impose substantial fines to match the gravity of the contempt, to deter the con......
  • Betts v. Bezanson-Gallant,
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • April 28, 2022
    ...6.100. However, one purpose of sentencing for civil contempt is punishment for breaching a court order: Chiang (Trustee of) v. Chiang, 2009 ONCA 3, 305 D.L.R. (4th) 655, at para. 117. Courts sometimes impose substantial fines to match the gravity of the contempt, to deter the contemnor&apos......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (March 15 ' 19, 2021)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • March 22, 2021
    ...& 60.11(1), Carey v. Laiken, 2015 SCC 17, United Nurses of Alberta v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 901, Chiang (Re), 2009 ONCA 3, Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Corkery, 2009 ONCA 85, Rocca Dickson Andreis Inc. v. Umberto Andreis, 2013 ONSC 5508 (Div. Ct.), Dare Fo......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (December 20-24, 2021)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • December 30, 2021
    ...Ltée v. Industries Microlec Produits Électroniques Inc., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 1065, [1992] S.C.J. No. 79, Chiang (Trustee of) v. Chiang (2009), 2009 ONCA 3, Dare Foods (Biscuit Divisions) Ltd. v. Gill, [1973] 1 O.R. 637, [1973] O.J. No. 21 (H.C.J.), Toronto Transit Commission v. Ryan (1998), 37 ......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (December 20-24, 2021)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • December 30, 2021
    ...Ltée v. Industries Microlec Produits Électroniques Inc., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 1065, [1992] S.C.J. No. 79, Chiang (Trustee of) v. Chiang (2009), 2009 ONCA 3, Dare Foods (Biscuit Divisions) Ltd. v. Gill, [1973] 1 O.R. 637, [1973] O.J. No. 21 (H.C.J.), Toronto Transit Commission v. Ryan (1998), 37 ......
  • Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (August 25th)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • September 4, 2017
    ...Orders, Enforcement, Contempt, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60.11(5), Carey v Laiken, 2015 SCC 17, Korea Data Systems Co. v Chiang, 2009 ONCA 3, Vidéotron Ltée v Industries Microlec produits électriques Inc., [1992] 2 SCR 1065, Sentencing, Boily v Carleton Condominum Corp 145, 2014 ONCA 5......
4 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Equitable Remedies. Second Edition
    • June 18, 2013
    ...51, 54 Chiang (Trustee of) v. Chiang (2007), 31 C.B.R. (5th) 19, 2007 CanlII 12203 (Ont. S.C.J.), var’d on another point 2009 ONCA 3 ................................. 132, 439, 446, 447 Chicken Farmers of Ontario v. Drost (2005), 258 D.L.R. (4th) 177, 204 O.A.C. 17, [2005] O.J. No. 3973 (Di......
  • Contempt of Court Proceedings
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Guide to the Law and Practice of Anti-SLAPP Proceedings Part I. Background and Context
    • June 13, 2022
    ...¶ 6.100. However, one purpose of sentencing for civil contempt is punishment for breaching a court order: Chiang (Trustee of) v. Chiang , 2009 ONCA 3, 305 D.L.R. (4th) 655, at para. 117. Courts sometimes impose substantial ines to match the gravity of the contempt, to deter the contemnor’s ......
  • Asset Preservation Orders - Mareva Injunctions
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Equitable Remedies. Second Edition
    • June 18, 2013
    ...(1987), [1988] Q.B. 787. 122 However, see Chiang (Trustee of) v. Chiang (2007), 31 C.B.R. (5th) 19 (Ont. S.C.J.), var’d on another point 2009 ONCA 3, where Lax J. ordered the surrendering of passports as part of a sanction for contempt of the court’s worldwide Mareva order. Asset Preservati......
  • Enforcement of Equitable Court Orders
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Equitable Remedies. Second Edition
    • June 18, 2013
    ...6 See Bhatnager v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) , [1990] 2 S.C.R. 217 [ Bhatnager ]; Chiang (Trustee of) v. Chiang , 2009 ONCA 3 at para. 11 [ Chiang ]. 7 MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Mills (1996), 22 B.C.L.R. (3d) 137 (C.A.); and Koerner v. Capital Health Authority , 2011 A......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT