Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Alleged criminal contempt arising from a lawyer’s admitted “untruthful and misleading” oral and written statements to the court during an earlier contempt proceeding.
• Procedural choice to prosecute criminal contempt summarily, initiated by a judge’s letter rather than by information or indictment, in line with R v Cohn and related authorities.
• Clarification that, despite its criminal nature, the contempt proceeding will continue within the civil file as a motion/sub-bundle, rather than as a separate “CR” criminal file.
• Termination of the amicus curiae’s role once the alleged contemnor retained counsel, addressing earlier procedural fairness concerns tied to her self-represented status.
• Amendment of the style of cause to reflect the public/criminal dimension of contempt (His Majesty the King v. Jisuh Lee) while preserving the link to the underlying civil/estate matter.
• Absence of any determination on liability, guilt, or sanctions at this stage, with no monetary penalties, costs, or damages ordered and no successful party identified yet.

Background and parties

The underlying civil proceeding involved an estate dispute in which Hai Chun Li and Zhou Hang Li acted as estate trustees for the Estate of Xiang Guo Li and Mingjie Cheng, with Hanna Ko as applicant. Within that broader context, the court became concerned with the conduct of lawyer Jisuh Lee, who had previously appeared in a contempt of court matter. The present endorsement focuses not on the estate merits, but on the potential criminal contempt liability of Ms. Lee arising from her own dealings with the court.
The court identifies His Majesty the King as the applicant and Ms. Lee as the respondent in the newly framed contempt proceeding, emphasizing the public and criminal dimension of the alleged misconduct rather than a purely private civil dispute.

Origins of the contempt concern

The proceeding was triggered by a letter dated October 6, 2025, from the court directing Ms. Lee to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court. In that earlier context, she had admitted to deliberately making “untruthful and misleading” oral and written statements to the court during a contempt of court proceeding. The October 6 letter framed specific, particularized counts of alleged contempt based on those admissions and directed Ms. Lee to appear to answer them. This initiation by judicial letter followed established appellate authority on how criminal contempt in the face of the court may properly be brought forward.

Procedural developments and appointment of amicus

At a case conference on December 2, 2025, the court noted procedural uncertainty, driven in large part by Ms. Lee’s failure to retain counsel while she faced quasi-criminal contempt allegations. To safeguard fair process and assist the court, the judge appointed Dean Embry as amicus curiae. His role was to provide independent assistance on procedure, ensuring that the matter could move forward in a principled way despite Ms. Lee’s lack of representation. The appointment reflected the seriousness of criminal contempt, which can carry penal consequences, and the need for clear, reliable guidance on how to structure the hearing.

Retainer of counsel and change in title of proceeding

By the time of the January 27, 2026 appearance, Ms. Lee had retained counsel—William C. McDowell and Derek Knoke—who confirmed that they had consulted with counsel for His Majesty the King. With Ms. Lee now represented, all counsel agreed there was no further need for an amicus curiae to assist on procedural issues. The court therefore discharged Mr. Embry from his role, expressing its thanks for his service.
Counsel also agreed the title of the proceeding should be amended to reflect its criminal nature. The judge ordered that the style of cause be revised to His Majesty the King, Applicant v. Jisuh Lee, Respondent. Despite this criminal framing, the court specified that the matter would remain procedurally situated in the civil branch as a motion or “sub-bundle” under the existing civil file, rather than being converted into a separate criminal (“CR”) file.

Legal framework for criminal contempt procedure

To clarify the procedural foundation, the judge referred to R v Cohn, which reviews the historical methods of prosecuting criminal contempt—summary process, criminal information, and indictment—and notes that proceeding by indictment has essentially fallen into disuse. The endorsement explains that criminal contempt has long been treated as an indictable offence, but modern practice relies on summary procedures in superior courts for contempt, particularly where the contempt is committed in the face of the court.
The court further cites authorities describing three accepted methods for initiating summary proceedings for contempt in the face of the court: (1) orally citing and dealing with the matter at once or after a brief adjournment to obtain counsel; (2) orally directing the alleged contemnor to appear at a specified time to show cause; and (3) sending a letter directing the alleged contemnor to appear to answer the charge. In this case, there was no emergency justifying immediate disposition, and the triggering event was a letter from Ms. Lee to the judge, leaving no realistic opportunity for an oral direction to attend. The court therefore adopted the third method and proceeded by way of a formal letter dated October 6, 2025, directing Ms. Lee to appear and answer particularized counts.
The endorsement also stresses that there will be no information laid and no indictment preferred by the Crown for this contempt matter. Instead, the criminal contempt proceeding continues in the civil branch with its revised title, and the Civil Trial Office is requested to open a sub-file and corresponding sub-bundle in Case Center under that new style of cause.

Current status, outcome, and financial consequences

The January 27, 2026 endorsement is procedural rather than determinative on the merits. Substantively, the court has not yet decided whether Ms. Lee is guilty of criminal contempt, nor has it imposed any sentence, sanction, or penalty. The only concrete orders are: (a) the adjournment of the case to a further case conference by Zoom on March 23, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. for scheduling purposes; (b) the discharge of amicus curiae following Ms. Lee’s retainer of counsel; (c) the amendment of the style of cause to His Majesty the King v. Jisuh Lee; and (d) administrative directions to the Civil Trial Office to open a suitable sub-file and sub-bundle.
At this stage there is no clearly identifiable “successful party” in the substantive sense. The Crown obtains the clarification it sought regarding the criminal characterization and structure of the proceeding, while Ms. Lee gains the benefit of representation and the termination of the amicus role that was only necessary due to her prior unrepresented status. Importantly, the court makes no award of damages, costs, fines, or other monetary relief. No total amount is ordered in favour of any party, and it cannot be said that any financial award or costs order has been granted based on this endorsement, because none is specified or imposed.