75-day House Arrest Ordered For Contempt In A Defamation Case

• Published date: 04 November 2022
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Libel & Defamation
• Law Firm: Gardiner Roberts LLP
• Author: Mr Stephen Thiele

In a previous blog dated June 30, 2022, my colleague James Cook wrote about the award granted to a university instructor who was defamed on Twitter by a political activist, CH. The case was Post v. Hillier, 2022 ONSC 3793 (CanLII). In an addendum to the decision, Mr. Cook noted that CH had been found in contempt of court for failing to obey the original order and that she was ultimately sentenced to 75-days house arrest, with probation to follow. This blog expands on the issue of sentencing for contempt based on this case.

Civil contempt is a procedure that is used to ensure that a court order is obeyed. Where a party to litigation fails to obey a court order, a motion can be brought to hold the party in contempt of court. Courts have noted that their orders must be obeyed otherwise the justice system will be ineffective. In Mercedez-Benz Financial v. Ivica Kovacevic, 2009 CanLII 9423 (ONSC), the court stated as follows:

...When a person deliberately fails to obey a court order, he shows disregard for the obligations which he owes to others in his community, disrespect for his community's system of justice which enforces those obligations, and disdain for the fundamental principle that all persons live in our community do so subject to the rule of law. By disobeying a court order, a person seeks to place himself above and beyond the law of his community. The disobedience also creates conditions of gross inequality, rewarding those who turn their backs on the law, while placing burdens on those who follow the law...

CH was found to have defamed the university instructor in a series of Tweets posted on Twitter. The posts began in November 2021. While the university instructor sought a resolution that would not involve the courts, she was ultimately required to commence an action for defamation because CH refused to stop her defamatory campaign. As reviewed in Mr. Cook's excellent blog, the court granted a default judgment against CH and ordered her to:

• remove any content about the instructor from her social media accounts;
• refrain permanently from communicating any further false or disparaging statements about the instructor; and
• post a retraction that her only online statements about the instructor were false.

CH did not comply with this order and instead tweeted 10 additional defamatory statements about the instructor on the same day as the order. Although the instructor's lawyer put CH on notice of the court order, CH continued to disobey it thereby...