Written By: Avery Cameron
Reviewed By: Grace Murdoch
Introduction
While the court’s use of civil contempt proceedings sends a strong message, it is not always the most appropriate mechanism to ensure parties are abiding by their legal obligations. In the recent decision of Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario v. Ontario Association of Architects,[1] the Court of Appeal for Ontario reviewed a motion judge’s contempt order, and questioned whether it was the appropriate mechanism for ensuring compliance with a court order in that case. After reviewing the common law approach to civil contempt and the role these proceedings play in the civil justice system, the reviewing court set aside the motion judge’s contempt order.
Factual Background – The Conflict and Consent Order
This decision makes up one part of a lengthy dispute between two professional associations – the Ontario Association of Architects (the “OAA”) and the Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario (the “AATO”) – over which organization has authority to regulate the work of architectural technologists in Ontario.[2]
While the OAA has legislative authority to grant architect licences to persons who satisfy academic, experience, and examination requirements prescribed by the Architects Act,[3] the AATO is empowered to regulate the use of various professional designations, including architectural technologists, under the Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario Act.[4] This alleged overlap in regulatory authority has resulted in lengthy litigation between these professional organizations.
In 2022, the AATO filed an application seeking relief from the OAA’s interference with the licensing of architectural technologists. Their relief included a declaration that the OAA lacked lawful authority to issue licenses of this kind, and an order to declare any existing architectural technologist licenses under the OAA be invalid.[5]
In 2023, the OAA agreed that they lacked legal authority to issue licenses to architectural technologists, and consented to the relief sought by the AATO (the “2023 Consent Order”).[6] Despite the consent order, the OAA continued to engage in activities related to the licensing and regulation of architectural technologists, including public hearings to issue restricted “Architect TCL” licenses to 10 individuals who were previously licensed by the OAA as architectural technologists.[7]
Factual Background – The Contempt Proceedings
In 2024, the AATO brought a notice of motion seeking an order finding the OAA in contempt of the 2023 Consent Order. The AATO argued that the OAA continued to lack the legislative authority required to issue licenses to architectural technologists, and that the OAA’s actions following the consent order breached the terms, or at the very least the spirit, of the 2023 Consent Order.[8]
The motion judge found that the OAA “manipulate[d] the committee review process to achieve the identical outcome as the banned licensure policy” and could find no lawful excuse for the OAA disobeying the 2023 Consent Order. In light of this conclusion, the motion judge imposed a $30,000 fine to “serve the purpose of compelling the [OAA’s] membership to ask questions and thus deter future breaches of court orders”.[9]
The Appeal
The OAA appealed the motion judge’s decision, taking particular issue with the lower court’s finding of contempt and the consequences that flowed from that determination. Justice Monahan, writing for a unanimous bench, found that “the order under appeal provides a textbook illustration of the inappropriate use of the Superior Court’s contempt power,”[10] and allowed the appeal and set aside the contempt order and associated penalty.
Analysis
The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge correctly identified the three elements of civil contempt that a moving party must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, as outlined in the leading case of Carey v. Laiken.[11] These factors include:
- the order the alleged contemnor breached must be clear and unequivocal;
- the alleged contemnor must have actual knowledge of the order; and
- the alleged contemnor must have intentionally disobeyed the order.
Despite identifying the correct legal principles to apply in this case, Justice Monahan found that the motion judge committed a reviewable error of law due to the misapplication of these principles.[12] After reviewing the 2023 Consent Order, the actions of the OAA, and the motion judges reasons, the Court of Appeal found that “none of these impugned actions, whether considered individually or collectively, can amount to an intentional breach of the 2023 Consent Order by the OAA.”[13]
In light of these shortcomings in the lower court’s analysis, the reviewing court determined that it was incumbent on the motion judge to consider a less severe enforcement option, such as a declaration, to bring the OAA within compliance with the 2023 Consent Order.[14] While Justice Monahan acknowledges that a motion judge’s exercise of discretion on a contempt motion is normally subject to deference, he writes that “no such deference is owed when the motion judge fails to properly turn their mind to the existence or nature of that discretion.”[15]
Takeaways
While pursuing an order for civil contempt remains an important tool in the judiciary’s legal toolbox to ensure the enforcement of legal orders and maintain the public’s trust in the legal system, the Court of Appeal’s decision in Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario v. Ontario Association of Architects confirms that such a finding must be saved for the most egregious and intentional divergence from the court’s instructions. Less extreme remedies, such as declaration acknowledging the breach of a court order, are more appropriate in cases such as this one.
[1] Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario v. Ontario Association of Architects, 2026 ONCA 539 [Association ONCA].
[2] Ibid at para 4.
[3] Architects Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.26.
[4] Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. Pr. 20.
[5] Association ONCA, supra note 1 at para 9.
[6] Ibid at para 10.
[7] Ibid at paras 12-18.
[8] Ibid at para 19.
[9] Ibid at para 36.
[10] Ibid at para 3.
[11] Carey v. Laiken, 2015 SCC 17.
[12] Association ONCA, supra note 1 at para 39.
[13] Ibid at para 52.
[14] Ibid at para 61.
[15] Ibid at para 62.
