Plaintiffs brought action seeking injunctive and other relief. Anton Piller order was issued, which required defendant to immediately deliver up all electronic devices and cell phones to independent supervising solicitor appointed by order. Supervising solicitor attended business premises and served defendant with copy of order, and he explained terms of order to defendant. Interpreter was present when order was served, and he translated part of order. Defendant did not surrender her cell phone when supervising solicitor asked her to do so. Defendant was ordered to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court order. Based on evidence of supervising solicitor and interpreter, defendant was personally served with order at business premises and she had notice of order. Defendant was principal actor, she had control of her cell phone and she failed to deliver it to supervising solicitor as required by order. By failing to comply, defendant disobeyed order. Defendant understood requirement to deliver her cell phone and she chose not to do so, and defendant's actions satisfied legal requirements of mens rea. Plaintiffs established, beyond reasonable doubt, that defendant was in contempt of court order. Defendant was given opportunity to make submissions prior to imposition of penalty.
Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Wang (2019), 2019 CarswellNat 1233, 2019 CarswellNat 1234, 2019 FC 32, 2019 CF 32, E. Heneghan J. (F.C.).
Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca.