Miscellaneous. Boily v Carleton Condominium Corporation 145
In Boily v Carleton Condominium Corporation 145 (Ont CA, 2014) the Cout of Appeal commented on the situation where the underlying order becomes 'ineffective':
 In any event, relying on authorities such as Sussex Group Ltd. v. 3933938 Canada Inc. (c.o.b. Global Export Consulting) (2003), 124 A.C.W.S. (3d) 274 (Ont. S.C.) (“Sussex”), Miller, and Garley v. Gabai-Maiato, 2006 ONCJ 28, the motion judge held that in circumstances in which the underlying order is considered “ineffective”, the appropriate course of action is not disobedience. The appropriate course of action is either to move for directions as soon as the problem becomes apparent, as the motion judge had expressly invited the parties to do, or appeal.. Godard v Godard
In Godard v Godard (Ont CA, 2015) the Court of Appeal commented on contempt in family proceedings:
 The motion judge was aware of the exceptional nature of contempt findings in family law. He cited this court’s decision in Hefkey v. Hefkey, 2013 ONCA 44, 30 R.F.L. (7th) 65, and wrote that, “[t]he Courts have repeatedly stressed that great caution must be exercised when considering contempt motions in family law proceedings. Contempt findings in such cases should be made only sparingly and as a last resort where conferences to try to resolve access problems or motions for enforcement have failed.”. Business Development Bank of Canada v. Cavalon Inc.
In Business Development Bank of Canada v. Cavalon Inc. (Ont CA, 2017) the Court of Appeal commented:
 A deliberate breach of a court order may constitute either a civil or a criminal contempt. A criminal contempt requires, in addition to a deliberate violation of a court order, an element of public defiance calculated to lessen societal respect for the courts: see U.N.A. v. Alberta (Attorney General), 1992 CanLII 99 (SCC),  1 S.C.R. 901, at para. 21. The choice of penalty for contempt must recognize the important distinction between civil and criminal contempt.. Carey v Laiken
In Carey v Laiken (SCC, 2015) stated:
 The common law has developed to recognize two forms of contempt of court: criminal contempt and civil contempt. The distinction, which the parties to this appeal accept, rests on the element of public defiance accompanying criminal contempt: see, e.g., United Nurses, at p. 931; Poje v. Attorney General for British Columbia, 1953 CanLII 34 (SCC),  1 S.C.R. 516, at p. 522. With civil contempt, where there is no element of public defiance, the matter is generally seen “primarily as coercive rather than punitive”: R. J. Sharpe, Injunctions and Specific Performance (2nd ed. (loose-leaf)), at ¶ 6.100. However, one purpose of sentencing for civil contempt is punishment for breaching a court order: Chiang (Trustee of) v. Chiang, 2009 ONCA 3, 305 D.L.R. (4th) 655, at para. 117. Courts sometimes impose substantial fines to match the gravity of the contempt, to deter the contemnor’s continuing conduct and to deter others from comparable conduct: Sharpe, at ¶ 6.100.
 The appellant also submits that lawyers should benefit from a heightened fault requirement, but I do not agree. As the Court of Appeal recognized, reliance on legal advice does not shield a party from a finding of contempt: para. 61, citing Re Tyre Manufacturers’ Agreement,  2 All E.R. 849 (R.P.C.), at p. 862; Canada Metal Co. v. C.B.C. (No. 2) (1974), 1974 CanLII 835 (ON SC), 48 D.L.R. (3d) 641 (Ont. H.C.J.), at p. 661, aff’d (1975), 1975 CanLII 544 (ON CA), 65 D.L.R. (3d) 231 (Ont. C.A.). Still less should the law permit lawyers to escape a finding of contempt because they have, in effect, relied on their own legal advice.