QUICK TAKEAWAY
Criminal Contempt of Court refers to any behaviour that disobeys or disrespects a court order, disrupts court proceedings or hinders a judge's ability to administer justice. It can also include insulting the court. If you are found guilty of criminal contempt, you may be fined, imprisoned or both. It is important to note that failure to attend court to give evidence may also be considered criminal contempt under section s.708 (1) of the Criminal Code. Understanding the consequences of criminal contempt of court can be challenging due to the broad nature of the offence and the fact that it is not fully defined in the Criminal Code.
Table of Contents:
What is Criminal Contempt of Court?
Generally speaking, contempt of court is any willful behaviour that insults or discredits the court or interferes with the administration of justice. This would include such things as bribing a witness or attempting to influence a judge. If you refuse to be sworn in as a witness or fail to answer questions, you could be charged.
A court official failing to perform their duties or a sheriff failing to execute a writ of the court can face charges. Disruptions in the court, such as failing to remain silent or failing to maintain a respectful attitude, can lead to a conviction.
Contempt of court also includes refusing to obey a subpoena or an order of the court. If your words, acts, or writings discredit or obstruct the administration of justice, you can be charged.
Criminal contempt of court is not set out in the Criminal Code and is the only remaining common-lawAlso known as case law, is a system of precedent-based rules not written down as legislation. offence in Canada besides contempt of Parliament. However, there is one exception. Section 708 (1) states that a "person who, being required by law to attend or remain in attendance for the purpose of giving evidence, fails, without lawful excuse, to attend or remain in attendance accordingly is guilty of contempt of court."
What the Crown Must Prove
To win a conviction for contempt of court, the Crown prosecutorLawyers who prosecutes charges on behalf of the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubtThe standard that must be exceeded to find someone guilty that you willingly defied or disobeyed a court order.
Treated as a Summary Offence
Criminal contempt of court is a common-law offence and therefore not considered a summary or indictable offence.
Under s.708 (1) of the Code, however, “a court, judge, justice or provincial court judge may deal summarily with a person who is guilty of contempt of court.”
Penalties for Contempt of Court
Because trial judges have the discretion to impose sentences, it is difficult to say what penalty you will face if you are held in contempt. It could be a jail term, a fine or both.
If you are charged under s. 708 (1) of the Code you will face a fine not exceeding $100, up to 90 days in jail or both.
R. v. Bengy - Case Example
Kimron Bengy was summoned to testify as a defence witness in the trial of Leon Alexander and Edmund Benjamin, who faced charges of murder and manslaughter. Bengy had been acquitted of one murder count and convicted of another related to the same case. On November 19, 2012, when he took the stand, he refused to answer any questions, despite being advised of the consequences of contempt. He was then cited for contempt and ordered to appear on December 7, 2012 to justify his refusal to answer questions.
OttawaLawyersNear Me
Céline Dostaler
Chiarelli Cramer Witteveen Llp
Danielson Kabesh Law Professional Corporation
Natasha J. Calvinho Criminal Defence Professional Corporation
Will Murray & Associates Criminal Defence Professional Corporation
Solomon Friedman
Glossary of Legal Terms
Common-law
Common law is a system of precedent-based rules not written down as legislation that guides judges in making later decisions in similar cases.
Crown prosecutor
Lawyers who act for the federal, provincial and territorial governments and prosecute people accused of crimes on behalf of the Crown.
Reasonable doubt
The Supreme Court of Canada has said that reasonable doubt “falls much closer to absolute certainty than to proof on a balance of probabilities” and “that something less than absolute certainty is required, and that something more than probable guilt is required."
