Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The plaintiffs successfully set aside an administrative dismissal, having actively prosecuted the action and faced no opposition.

• Susan Stevens was found in civil contempt for breaching clear court orders prohibiting use and sale of a specific asset (an RV).

• Court orders from 2016 and 2017, including a Mareva injunction, explicitly barred Stevens from disposing of listed assets.

• Evidence proved Stevens knowingly and intentionally took and sold the RV in violation of these orders.

• Despite the contempt finding, the court deferred sentencing to allow Stevens a chance to purge her contempt.

• Full indemnity costs of $16,870.55 were awarded due to the especially egregious nature of the breach.

Background and Facts

This case is part of a broader civil fraud action brought by Jocine Holdings Limited and related parties against Susan Stevens and others. The plaintiffs allege that Stevens, in her former role as bookkeeper, defrauded them of millions of dollars. Criminal proceedings ensued, and in August 2018, Stevens pled guilty to serious charges including fraud over $5,000, uttering forged documents, and laundering proceeds of crime. She was sentenced to five years in prison and ordered to pay $1.1 million in restitution to Manston Construction Ltd., one of the plaintiffs.

To protect the plaintiffs’ interests, the court issued a Mareva injunction in June 2016, later extended and varied by court orders in September 2016 and September 2017. These orders explicitly prohibited Stevens from disposing of assets, including a list of 12 vehicles. One of these was a recreational vehicle (RV).

Violation and Motion for Contempt

Despite the standing orders, Stevens retrieved the RV from a storage location in August 2024, without notifying the plaintiffs or the court. She later sold the RV in February 2025 for $20,000. Plaintiffs only discovered its removal when a bailiff attempted to seize the RV in October 2024 and found it gone.

The plaintiffs then brought a motion for contempt, arguing that Stevens knowingly breached both the 2016 and 2017 court orders. The court applied the established three-part test for contempt from Carey v. Laiken, 2015 SCC 17:

1. The orders must be clear and unequivocal — they were.

2. The alleged contemnor must have had actual knowledge — she did.

3. The act must be intentional — it was.

Justice Papageorgiou found that all elements were met beyond a reasonable doubt. Although Stevens argued that the RV had been abandoned and was in poor condition, she acknowledged the sale and admitted to receiving $20,000. The court emphasized that disregard for the orders, even if well-intentioned, is not a defence.

Outcome and Orders

The court formally declared Stevens in contempt of court, but postponed sentencing to give her a chance to purge the contempt. Justice Papageorgiou ordered:

• Production of all documents related to the RV sale within 7 days (e.g., bill of sale, transfer documents, proof of funds, and insurance).

• Payment of the remaining funds from the sale (approximately $10,000) within 7 days.

• Repayment of the full $20,000, though no timeline was imposed for the balance due to her unemployed status.

The penalty phase was scheduled for September 15, 2025. The plaintiffs reserved the right to pursue a claim for fraudulent conveyance, should they determine the RV sale was below market value.

Additionally, the court granted leave to amend the Statement of Claim to include aliases used by Stevens. Due to her particularly egregious conduct, costs were awarded against her on a full indemnity basis, totaling $16,870.55.