Case # 35597
Peter W. G. Carey v. Judith Laiken (December 10, 2014)
The appellant, Mr. Carey, is a lawyer. The appellant transferred money from a trust account to his client, despite a Mareva injunction obtained by the respondent. The respondent brought a contempt motion against the appellant. The respondent argued that by returning the money to his client, the appellant had violated the Mareva injunction. The motion judge initially found the appellant in contempt. At the penalty stage the trial judge allowed the appellant to reopen the contempt motion. The judge found there was not sufficient evidence to rule that the appellant had willfully violated the Mareva injunction. The court of appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the contempt order. The Court of Appeal ruled that the Mareva violation was clear and that the trial judge should not have reopened the motion.