|
Contempt - Discretion. Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Teamsters Canada Rail Conference
In Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Teamsters Canada Rail Conference (Fed CA, 2024) the Federal Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from a finding of civil contempt, here in relation to a railway labour arbitration award.
Here the court notes that a judge has 'discretion' to find civil contempt, even though grounds for it otherwise exist:[68] The Federal Court’s reasons also do not adequately consider the discretion to find, or not find, contempt.
[69] Even if all of the criteria in support of a finding of contempt are met, judges retain discretion in finding contempt (Carey at paras. 36-37), and the failure of a court to consider its discretion in exercising its contempt power is an error of law (Chong v. Donnelly, 2019 ONCA 799, [2019] O.J. No. 5048 at para. 12). Here, the Federal Court mentioned its discretion in its reasons (Federal Court decision at paras. 61 and 81-82) but went no further. Reasons cannot simply make note of the correct legal test, then fail to apply it (R v. Chung, 2020 SCC 8, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 405 at para. 13). The judge’s reasoning with respect to discretion was purely conclusory and does not allow this Court to understand why the judge chose to exercise her discretion or not.
[70] Contempt is a power that must be exercised lightly. It is a remedy of last resort, and it should not be used as a means to enforce judgments (Carey at para. 36). Judges entertaining contempt motions must seriously consider their overriding discretion in light of the purpose of contempt, and all other relevant circumstances, including the behaviour of the contemnor and the nature of the order.
|
