{"id":593,"date":"2016-05-12T16:41:44","date_gmt":"2016-05-13T00:41:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/schenklaw.ca\/?p=593"},"modified":"2016-05-12T16:57:48","modified_gmt":"2016-05-13T00:57:48","slug":"failure-to-remove-building-results-in-contempt-order","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/schenklaw.ca\/?p=593","title":{"rendered":"Failure to remove building results in contempt order"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.courts.gov.bc.ca\/jdb-txt\/ca\/16\/02\/2016BCCA0201.htm\">2016 BCCA 201 Langford (City) v. dos Reis<\/a><\/em> concerns a failure to abide by a Court of Appeal issued order to remove a building. The refusal to abide by the order resulted in a contempt finding.<\/p>\n<p>On intention to breach the order the Court had this to say:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>[24]         It is not controversial that the first two elements of civil contempt are satisfied: the order is clear and the respondent was fully aware of it.  The real issue in this case is the third element: intent.  The respondent\u2019s position is simply that her mind was on saving the building, not on breaching the order.  That is not a valid defence to civil contempt.  I refer again to Carey v. Laiken:<\/p>\n<p>[38]      It is well settled in Canadian common law that all that is required to establish civil contempt is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of an intentional act or omission that is in fact in breach of a clear order of which the alleged contemnor has notice: Prescott-Russell, at para. 27; College of Optometrists, at para. 71; Sheppard, at p. 8; TG Industries, at paras. 17 and 32; Bhatnager, at pp. 224-25; Sharpe [Robert J. Sharpe, Injunctions and Specific Performance, 2d ed. (Aurora, Ont.: Canada Law Book, 1992) (loose-leaf updated November 2014, release 23)], at para. 6.190. The Court of Appeal followed this approach. As it noted, to require a contemnor to have intended to disobey the order would put the test \u201ctoo high\u201d and result in \u201cmistakes of law [becoming] a defence to an allegation of civil contempt but not to a murder charge\u201d (2013 ONCA 530, at para. 59). Instead, contumacy or lack thereof goes to the penalty to be imposed following a finding of contempt: para. 62; see also Sheppard; and Sharpe, at para. 6.200.<\/p>\n<p>[25]         There cannot be the slightest doubt that the respondent intentionally omitted to remove the building.  I find that the third element of civil contempt has been made out.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>2016 BCCA 201 Langford (City) v. dos Reis concerns a failure to abide by a Court of Appeal issued order to remove a building. The refusal to abide by the order resulted in a contempt finding. On intention to breach the order the Court had this to say: [24] It is not controversial that the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-593","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-litigation","category-municipal"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/schenklaw.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/593","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/schenklaw.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/schenklaw.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/schenklaw.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/schenklaw.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=593"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/schenklaw.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/593\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/schenklaw.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=593"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/schenklaw.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=593"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/schenklaw.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=593"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}