H. Bernbaum Import-Export Co. v. Myer Bald Inc.
T-2307-92
Muldoon J.
26/1/94
8 pp.
Application to show cause why defendants should not be condemned for contempt of Court for breach of defendant's undertaking amounting to self-imposed injunction -- Undertaking signed by "Henry Liss" in capacity of "President" of company without impression of corporate or personal seal -- No consideration therefor -- Expressed as being made to Court although unsolicited -- Federal Court R. 355 providing disobedience of Court process or order, or acting in such way as to interfere with orderly administration of justice, or to impair authority or dignity of Court contempt of Court -- Whether failure to fulfil such undertaking contempt of Court -- Contempt extending well beyond breach of court orders -- If evidence establishing prima facie breach of injunction, judge must issue show cause order unless absolutely certain not deserving to be punished -- To determine whether prima facie case, must first answer: is undertaking capable of supporting civil prosecution for contempt of Court -- Where Court requiring undertaking to make good any loss resulting from injunction, Court ought not rely on counsel, but ought to demand instrument expressing undertaking of corporate plaintiff under seal -- Affidavit evidence raising prima facie case of defendant not living up to its undertakings -- Although undertaking gratuitous, defendant aware action instituted against it in this Court -- In accord with R. 355(4) defendants ordered to appear, and to have opportunity to answer plaintiff's attempts to show cause beyond reasonable doubt why defendants should be condemned for contempt of Court -- General principles governing contempt procedure set out in 746278 Ontario Ltd. v. Courtot (1989), 26 C.P.R. (3d) 516 (F.C.T.D.) -- Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, R. 355(1),(4).