The matter involved a former employee of the Plaintiffs, Norman Spence (“Spence”), who left his employment with the Plaintiffs and began a competing company. The Plaintiffs brought a Civil Contempt Application on the basis that Spence had deleted electronic records, and had allegedly directed a third party to delete electronic records after a Document Preservation Order had been issued. The Court held that there are both factual and mental components required to prove Civil Contempt. The Court found that the Defendant was in Civil Contempt, and held:

[I]t has been established beyond a reasonable doubt that Spence directed or counselled a third party to destroy records relevant and material to the within action, and that Spence’s material purpose in acting was to interfere with the administration of justice.