Simon's Megalomaniacal Legal Resources

SPPA - Contempt [s.13]

. CEO of Finance v. Stoliar

In CEO of Finance v. Stoliar (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court granted an "application by way of a stated case for a finding" that the respondents "failed to comply with a summons served upon them under section 444.1 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8 (the “Insurance Act”). The Applicant seeks a punishment akin to what a court can order on contempt.", this wrt an FSRA investigation:

[5] After receiving a complaint in 2023, the FSRA began an investigation against several persons centered around allegations that Mr. Poshtarenko, in concert with others like Mr. Stoliar, was acting as an insurance agent without being licenced to do so. As the investigation unfolded, other alleged improprieties in contravention of the Insurance Act were uncovered. The Applicant issued summonses under section 444.1 of the Insurance Act to the Respondents to further the FSRA’s investigation.

[6] Section 444.1(1) states:

The Chief Executive Officer may issue a summons where he or she believes that,

(a) it is necessary in order to determine whether a person is complying with this Act or a requirement imposed under this Act; and

(b) it is, in the circumstances, in the public interest.

[7] Despite more than one summons issued to attend for examination, both Respondents failed to attend in answer to the summons.

[8] In the event of non-compliance, s. 444.1(6) of the Insurance Act provides:

If the person does not comply with the summons, the Chief Executive Officer may state a case to the Divisional Court setting out the facts and, after hearing any witnesses who may be produced against or on behalf of that person and after hearing any statement that may be offered in defence, the court may punish the person in the same manner as if the person had been guilty of contempt of the court.

[9] To be clear, the Applicant is not seeking a finding of contempt of court. That is not available under s. 444.1(6). Rather, the provision provides a range of consequences for failing to comply with a summons similar to the orders available on a determination of a contempt of court. Therefore, not all aspects of a civil contempt proceeding applies; for example, a bifurcation of the proceedings between liability and penalty: Boily v. Carleton Condominium Corporation 145, 2014 ONCA 574.

[10] That being acknowledged, the “punishment” available under s. 444.1(6) includes the types of orders that are set out in Rule 60.11(5) of the Civil Rules of Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 involving civil contempt of court. This includes a fine or imprisonment. Given the seriousness of the potential sanction, while the Applicant argues it is unnecessary to do so under s. 444.1(6), I find it prudent to apply the test for a civil contempt order. The three-part test as modified to the circumstances of s. 444.1 requires the Applicant to prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the summons clearly and unequivocally states what should or should not be done; (2) the party alleged to have failed to comply with the summons has actual knowledge of it. Knowledge can be inferred in the circumstances or proven based on the wilful blindness doctrine; and (3) the party allegedly in breach must have intentionally failed to have complied with the summons: Carey v. Laiken, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 79, 2015 SCC 17, at paras. 32-35.

[11] After the exercise of great restraint and caution, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the three elements have been made out for both Mr. Poshtarenko and Mr. Stoliar.

....

[16] On the facts before me, this application has been an enforcement mechanism of last rather than first resort: Carey v. Laiken, at para. 36. I make the finding against both men that they have failed to comply with a summons within the meaning of s. 444.1(6).

. Syed v. Security National Insurance and Licence Appeal Tribunal

In Syed v. Security National Insurance and Licence Appeal Tribunal (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court dismisses a LAT SABS JR, here involving a 'catastrophic impairment' claim [under SABS s.3.1(1) and 45].

Here the court considers a rare SPPA s.13 ['Contempt proceedings'] 'stated Divisional Court' case:

Ground (iii):

[65] The third ground of alleged procedural unfairness asserted by Ms. Syed is that the Adjudicator failed to hear her motion that the Tribunal state a case to the Divisional Court for contempt as against Security National.

[66] As noted by the Adjudicator, Ms. Syed’s motion was brought pursuant to s.13 (1)(c) of the SPPA. That section provides that where a person without lawful excuse does any other thing that would, if the tribunal had been a court of law having power to commit for contempt, had been contempt of that court, the tribunal may state a case to the Divisional Court. By its wording, that section is permissive.

[67] This motion is addressed at paras. 32 to 34 of the Decision. At para. 34, the Adjudicator states that there were no grounds for stating a case for contempt to the Divisional Court because: “[T]he alleged misbehaviour did not relate to any person’s conduct in this proceeding before the Tribunal, and therefore could not qualify as contempt of court.”

[68] Ms. Syed submits that the Adjudicator was wrong in dismissing the motion: 1) he was wrong in law in concluding that the misbehaviour did not relate to any person’s conduct in the proceeding before the Tribunal; and, 2) at para. [33] 2., the Adjudicator misstated the second instance of contempt. She asks this court to read the Motion for Contempt which, she submits, supports these two errors.

[69] As explained earlier in these reasons, an application for judicial review is not intended to provide the parties with an opportunity to appeal from decisions made in the course of a hearing. Whether the Adjudicator was correct in his determination of the motion is separate and distinct from the question of whether Ms. Syed was denied procedural fairness at the hearing.

[70] As referenced in her factum, Ms. Syed acknowledges that there was a motion record before the Adjudicator, which, it would appear, was considered by the Adjudicator. While Ms. Syed does not agree with the disposition of her request that the Adjudicator state a case to the Divisional Court, she has not identified any procedural unfairness to her on how her request was determined.

. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 v. Canadian Professional Crane Inc.

In International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 v. Canadian Professional Crane Inc. (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court held a case conference where the union applicant sought an unusual contempt order (before the court) under SPPA s.13 against an employer for behaviour before the OLRB:

[1] The applicant has put forward a stated case from the Ontario Labour Relations Board (“OLRB”) under s. 13 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22.

[2] I emphasize to the respondents that this is a very serious matter. The applicant seeks a finding of contempt and related penalties against them.

[3] The OLRB stated the case on November 10, 2020, more than two years ago. The applicant submits that due to inadvertence it was not put forward at that time, that little has occurred since then, that the respondents have still failed to comply, and that the related OLRB application is still outstanding, having been adjourned by the OLRB sine die (indefinitely). It can therefore continue.

[4] The applicant served the respondents with the application and case conference directions in this Court in a variety of ways, but that service has not resulted in anyone attending at the case management teleconference on August 2, 2023. I am therefore requiring that the applicant take the following steps to serve this endorsement on the respondents (appending the notice of application to the endorsement):

(i) for the corporate respondents, the applicant shall do a corporate search to ascertain the current address for the corporation and the listed directors of each of them;

(ii) the applicant shall then serve the corporations by (1) regular mail; (2) personal service under r. 62.02(1)(c); (3) and personal service on all named directors under r. 62.02(1)(a);

(iii) the applicant shall serve the personal respondent by personal service under r. 62.02(1)(a); and,

(iv) the applicant shall send the endorsement to the any email addresses that it has for the respondents.

[5] The applicant shall then request another case conference and provide affidavit(s) of service setting out the steps taken, any email addresses, and any response received from any of the respondents.

[6] The respondents shall promptly email this Court, noting the above Court File Number, and provide their email addresses for use by the Court in future communications. The corporate respondents are also reminded of the obligation to retain counsel or seek leave of the Court to proceed without counsel.

[7] At the next case conference, the following issues shall be discussed:

(i) the impact of the delay since 2020, and whether the applicant ought to go back to the OLRB and ask again for an updated stated case based on the current status of the matter before the OLRB; and,

(ii) the schedule for the application, if needed.

[8] Prior to the case conference, the OLRB indicated an intention not to appear on this application. I require that the OLRB appear, given the unusual circumstances that are now before the Court.