Inivos sought to enforce three English High Court orders in Ontario, prohibiting Mr. Marsh from publishing defamatory content and awarding damages and costs.
The applicants filed a motion to hold Mr. Marsh in contempt for allegedly violating a November 7, 2023, order.
Key Issues:
Inivos claimed that leaving defamatory content online amounted to ongoing publication.
The court had to determine if Mr. Marsh knew the order’s terms before alleged breaches.
Court’s Findings:
The November 7 order did not clearly require Mr. Marsh to remove prior posts; it only barred future defamatory publications. Thus, leaving old content accessible did not clearly constitute contempt.
Evidence showed Mr. Marsh only fully understood the order by January 1, 2024, due to the overwhelming volume of documents served. The court accepted this, ruling he lacked actual knowledge before that date.
The burden of proving contempt beyond a reasonable doubt was not met, as the order lacked clarity regarding past posts.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the contempt motion, emphasizing that contempt is a last resort and should not be used when substantial compliance was later achieved.
Costs submissions were invited if unresolved between the parties.
