Justice Jeffrey considered whether the test for civil Contempt should be more stringent when the alleged contempt involves lying under oath during litigation, compared to civil Contempt for breaching a Court Order.

The case stemmed from Questor Technology Inc.'s allegations that the Respondents knowingly provided false evidence, withheld information, and misled both Questor and the Court during litigation.

Justice Jeffrey noted that the Action was under case management by another Justice. According to Rule 4.14(2), all interlocutory Applications in a case under case management should be heard by the Case Management Justice. However, due to a Court oversight, this Application was mistakenly reassigned to Justice Jeffrey. Upon realizing the mistake, the Case Management Justice allowed the Application to proceed before Justice Jeffrey, and the Parties did not object.

Justice Jeffrey also considered whether to consolidate the Contempt Application with the Trial, as per Rule 3.72. However, after careful consideration and because all parties opposed consolidation, Justice Jeffrey decided against consolidating the contempt Application with the Trial.

The Court clarified that civil Contempt does not necessitate proof of contumacious intent
(i.e., intent to deceive or mislead). Instead, it requires only that the act or omission constituting contempt be intentional. The Court emphasized that civil Contempt and perjury are distinct legal concepts, and conflating the two would unduly elevate the standard of proof for civil Contempt involving false statements under oath.

The Court also highlighted that the absence of a reasonable excuse is a critical consideration in civil Contempt cases, as specified in Rule 10.52(3)(a), placing the burden on the moving party to prove such absence. Furthermore, the Court noted that while civil Contempt does not require proof of intent to deceive, such intent, if proven, might influence the severity of the penalty.

The Court found that the Respondents’ actions did not align with the purpose of Rule 5.27. The errors were known at the time they were made, and the corrections were motivated by
self-interest rather than a genuine effort to comply with the Rules. Consequently, the Court concluded that the Respondents’ conduct constituted civil Contempt.