PRACTICE |
Contempt of Court |
Universal Foods Inc. v. Hermes Food Importers Ltd.
A-200-03
2004 FCA 53, Rothstein J.A.
3/2/04
4 pp.
Appeal from order of Lemieux J. ((2003), 231 F.T.R. 257 (F.C.T.D.)) finding appellant guilty of contempt of order of Pinard J.--After appellant consented to discontinuance of Anton Piller order issued by Campbell J., Pinard J. ordered appellant (plaintiff) to forthwith return to defendants all goods and documents seized from such defendants in course of execution of Anton Piller order--Lemieux J. held goods not returned to defendants until one month and ten days after appellant became aware of Pinard J.'s order--He therefore found appellant failed to return goods forthwith and in contempt of Pinard J.'s order--Order issued by Rouleau J., which was precursor of contempt proceedings before Lemieux J., required appellant to show cause why it should not be found in contempt for knowingly and intentionally failing to deliver to defendant forthwith after December, 10, 2002, goods seized from defendant in course of execution of Anton Piller order--No requirement to prove intention to disobey court order in order to make out case of civil contempt-- Reference to "knowingly and intentionally" failing to return goods merely meant appellant's failure to return goods could not be accidental or involuntary--No requirement failure to return goods motivated by intention to disobey Pinard J.'s order--Lemieux J.'s finding appellant did not deliberately flaunt Pinard J.'s order and simply nonchalant about compliance, went to assessment of appropriate fine--Did not change fact appellant knew of its obligation under Pinard J.'s order--Appeal dismissed.