A first in Canada: The 18-month ceiling established by the Supreme Court in Jordan said to apply to civil contempt of court cases

In Quebec, a contempt of court proceeding under the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) is heard before the Superior Court of Quebec. 

According to the Supreme Court of Canada in Jordan,¹ a 30-month ceiling applies to cases heard before a superior court. 

The 30-month ceiling should therefore apply to contempt cases, within the meaning of the CCP. 

However, this is not the Superior Court of Quebec’s opinion. In a recent decision, the Superior Court considered this issue in Ville de Montréal c. Gestion Tasa inc.² and determined that the 18-month ceiling set for provincial courts in Jordan could apply to cases of contempt of court. 

This is a first in Canada, and it will be interesting to follow developments in this area, particularly as it may be difficult in Quebec to obtain a trial date within 18 months before the Superior Court of Quebec in a case of this type. 

The facts

In August 2018, Ville de Montréal won its case against Gestion Tasa Inc. and La Maison Sami T.A. Fruits inc. (Sami Fruits) and obtained orders requiring Sami Fruits to comply with the zoning by-law and to cease the accessory use of retail sale of fruit and vegetables over an area exceeding 15% of the total gross floor area.

In November 2021, despite these orders, Ville de Montréal served Sami Fruits with a subpoena for contempt of court, alleging that the latter was failing to comply with the orders issued by the court. In September 2022, Ville de Montréal served a second subpoena for contempt of court, covering a different period, but containing similar allegations. 

In July 2024, following several preliminary applications submitted by both parties as part of the proceedings, Sami Fruits filed an application for stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay, alleging a violation of its rights protected in Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.³

A period of 1,172 days had elapsed, and, therefore, Sami Fruits alleged that the 18-month and 30-month ceilings set by the Supreme Court of Canada in Jordan had been exceeded. Ville de Montréal argued that the delays were mostly attributable to Sami Fruits and they should be deducted from the calculation.

Challenges in the application of the Jordan principles in civil matters

According to the principles of Jordan, which was a criminal matter, a presumptive ceiling set at 18 or 30 months is presumed to be unreasonable, unless exceptional circumstances to justify it.⁴

In provincial court cases⁵ (without a preliminary inquiry), the time limit is set at 18 months.⁶ The time limit is extended to 30 months in cases heard before a superior court.

But what framework should be applied to a civil matter involving a conviction for a penal offence that is being heard before the Superior Court when no preliminary inquiry is comprised? 

In St-Amour v. Major⁷, the Superior Court considered this issue, confirming that the principles of Jordan apply to civil contempt. However, the applicable ceiling had not been determined. 

In October 2024, the Court of Appeal determined in R. c. Costanzo-Peterson⁸ that some omissions and inaccuracies existed regarding the application in Quebec law of principles of Jordan given the coexistence of two ceilings depending on the presence or absence of a preliminary inquiry. 

Preliminary inquiries do not exist in civil law and have no equivalent. In Ville de Montréal c. Gestion Tasa inc., Superior Court Justice Finn concluded that although preliminary applications in civil law allow for disclosure of evidence that may help the defendant, they do not play the role of a preliminary inquiry in criminal law, which is to determine whether the prosecution has sufficient and admissible evidence to justify sending the accused to trial.

The Superior Court applies the 18-month ceiling on the contempt of court proceeding

In Quebec, articles 57 to 62 of the CCP set out the contempt of court proceeding. It is a quasi-criminal proceeding that requires the presumption of innocence and imposes the burden of proof applicable in criminal law, i.e., that of proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt. 

However, as this proceeding does not include a preliminary inquiry, the Superior Court justice considered that he should be guided by a contextual assessment of all the circumstances in order to determine the applicable ceiling. 

Following an in-depth obiter analysis by the court, it concluded that the applicable ceiling was the one set at 18 months. 

The court rejected the arguments of Ville de Montréal to the effect that the delay was not unreasonable given Sami Fruits’ own involvement in the delays during the proceedings. The court therefore granted the stay of proceedings due to the delay filed by Sami Fruits. 

Note that Ville de Montréal appealed this judgment on March 3, 2025.⁹ This case could be an opportunity for the Supreme Court of Canada to clarify its framework for analyzing delays, both in criminal and civil matters.

Authors’ comments

A person accused of contempt of court in a civil case is considered an “accused” person and is entitled to the constitutional protections of the Charter.¹⁰ Therefore, even a private party that initiates contempt proceedings must ensure, as must the public prosecutor, that the fundamental rights of the accused to be brought to trial within a reasonable time and to silence are respected. 

In this context, it should be noted that the analysis in Jordan does not take into account the reality of civil procedure, particularly when the alleged contempt itself stems from a civil case that can take several years to reach trial. It will therefore be essential for the party wishing to initiate this type of proceeding to ensure that it has all the required evidence before serving the defendant and to schedule the hearing expeditiously.

As the issue of the applicable ceiling has not yet been clearly decided in other Canadian provinces, it will also be interesting to follow the impact of this matter before common law courts.