Ross v. Ross
The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred in principle by treating the absence of a plan for supervised house arrest as decisive against a conditional sentence; because the appellant had purged his contempt and had mitigating characteristics, that error affected the sentence, and the 15‑day jail sentence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2019 ONCA 724
- Parties
- Appellant: J. Gordon Ross, Estate Trustee for the Estate of Mary Elizabeth Grafton, Deceased; Respondent: James H. Ross; Respondent: J. Grafton Ross; Respondent: S. Graeme Ross
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 16 September 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sentence for Contempt (court of Appeal Decision)
- Outcome
- Sentence suspended and set aside
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Passing of Accounts, Conditional Sentence, Purging Contempt, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
J. Gordon Ross, Estate Trustee for the Estate of Mary Elizabeth Grafton, Deceased
Appellant
James H. Ross
Respondent
J. Grafton Ross
Respondent
S. Graeme Ross
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sentence for Contempt (court of Appeal Decision)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred by requiring an express plan for supervised house arrest before imposing a conditional sentence
- 2 Whether the 15‑day jail sentence for contempt should be suspended or set aside
- 3 Whether the appellant had purged his contempt and the effect of purging on sentencing
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred in principle by treating the absence of a plan for supervised house arrest as decisive against a conditional sentence; because the appellant had purged his contempt and had mitigating characteristics, that error affected the sentence, and the 15‑day jail sentence was suspended and set aside with directions to follow‑up on passing of accounts with diligence and counsel assistance.
Court Disposition
Sentence suspended and set aside
Orders
- Sentence of 15 days' imprisonment suspended and set aside
- Appellant ordered to follow up on any further order arising from the passing of accounts scheduled for October 31, 2019 with diligence and with the assistance of counsel
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Ross v. Ross Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2019-09-16 Neutral citation 2019 ONCA 724 Docket numbers C66530 Judges Hoy, Alexandra; Tulloch, Michael H.; Jamal, Mahmud Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Ross v. Ross, 2019 ONCA 724 DATE: 20190916 DOCKET: C66530 Hoy A.C.J.O., Tulloch and Jamal JJ.A. BETWEEN J. Gordon Ross, Estate Trustee for the Estate of Mary Elizabeth Grafton, Deceased Appellant (Respondent) and James H. Ross, J. Grafton Ross and S. Graeme Ross Respondents (Applicants) W. Gerald Punnett, for the appellant, J. Gordon Ross Mark A. Radulescu, for the respondents Heard and released orally: September 12, 2019 On appeal from the order of Justice D.A. Broad of the Superior Court of Justice, dated January 25, 2019. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant appeals the order sentencing him to 15 days in jail, to be served on weekends, for contempt of an order relating to the passing of the accounts of his aunt’s estate. [2] We agree with the appellant that the sentencing judge erred in principle in considering that the appellant had not put forward a plan for adequate supervision of house arrest terms in concluding that a conditional sentence was not appropriate in the circumstances. We also conclude that such error affected the sentence imposed. [3] The respondent concedes that the appellant has now purged his contempt. The appellant is a lawyer who has practised law for over 45 years. He is now 73 years of age, has no prior convictions, and had no prior findings of contempt. The sentencing judge found that his non-compliance arose from “a failure to understand and appreciate or to ignore the need for, and importance of, complying with the order within the specified time or within any reasonable time.” It is difficult to conclude that this amounts to a callous disregard for the court’s authority. [4] In all of the circumstances, we suspend and set aside the sentence imposed and order the appellant to follow-up on any further order imposed out of the passing of accounts scheduled for October 31, 2019 with diligence and with the assistance of counsel. [5] In all of the circumstances, there should be no costs in this matter. “Alexandra Hoy A.C.J.O.” “M. Tulloch J.A.” “M. Jamal J.A.”