Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The defendant violated a court order by failing to remove defamatory Facebook posts after being explicitly instructed to do so.

• The order prohibited statements identifying the plaintiffs as Black-hating, racist, or fascist, and was found to be clear and unambiguous.

• The court found that continued online publication of the original posts constituted contempt, even without new postings.

• Despite being served and notified, the defendant failed to appear or respond, undermining his position.

• The court held that contempt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt and merited judicial enforcement.

• A graduated financial penalty was imposed to ensure compliance and uphold the authority of the court.

Background of the dispute

This case involved two plaintiffs, Kaitlyn Spurvey and Georgina McKee, management employees of the Connective Support Society in Whitehorse, who brought defamation actions against Yonis Melew, a former employee of the same organization. Melew had posted multiple public Facebook statements describing the plaintiffs in derogatory terms, including as "Black-hating," "racist," and "fascist." The court found these posts manifestly defamatory and, on March 1, 2024, issued an interlocutory injunction prohibiting Melew from publishing such statements or identifying the plaintiffs in any way that conveyed these accusations.

Despite this order, Melew failed to remove the original posts, prompting the plaintiffs to return to court seeking a finding of civil contempt. They requested that Melew be held in contempt for failing to comply with the injunction and asked for penalties, including fines and special costs.

Court proceedings and findings

The court found that Melew had actual knowledge of the order. He had been present when the injunction was granted and was repeatedly contacted by counsel to remove the offending posts. However, he ignored those communications, and the posts remained live on his Facebook page, thereby continuing to publish defamatory material in breach of the injunction.

The court applied the legal test for civil contempt, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of three elements: that the order was clear, that the defendant knew of the order, and that he intentionally did something that breached it. All three were satisfied. Although no new defamatory posts were made after the injunction, the continued availability of the original posts was deemed an ongoing violation.

Notably, Melew failed to appear for the contempt hearing and offered no valid excuse despite being properly served. The court emphasized that his noncompliance and lack of engagement with the proceedings reflected a pattern of disregard for the judicial process.

Penalty and costs

The court concluded that civil contempt had been established and that a judicial response was necessary to maintain the rule of law and deter similar misconduct. A fine of $1,500 was imposed, with an additional $1,500 to be levied if the posts were not removed by July 31, 2024. The court clarified that contempt fines are payable to the Territorial Treasurer, not to the plaintiffs personally.

Given the seriousness of Melew’s noncompliance, the court also awarded special costs to the plaintiffs. This was justified both under Rule 59(4) and at common law, with the court citing precedent that a successful party in a civil contempt proceeding is entitled to be indemnified for having to enforce a court order.

Conclusion

The decision in Spurvey v Melew underscores the enforceability of court orders, especially in cases involving online defamation. The ruling affirms that persistent failure to comply with clear judicial directions, particularly in the context of ongoing harm via social media, will attract serious consequences, including contempt findings, financial penalties, and cost awards.