What are consequences for defendant failing to meet orders of civil court? I read that a civil court judge may order that a defendant, for example, pay damages; or, another example, provide particulars relevant to the pre-trial pleadings. But what if they don't comply? What are the consequences for ignoring the orders of the court in the context of a civil trial? (I live in British Columbia and I'm trying to understand BC Supreme Court procedure.)
In the United States (and probably any common law country) a judge may find a person in criminal or civil contempt of court. One is in contempt of court if they refuse to follow the orders of the court. If one thinks the orders are wrong or improper the proper remedy is to ask for a stay of the order or file an emergency appeal and hope for a stay there. If no stay is received comply with the order until the appeal is heard. If we assume one does not follow the orders of a civil court, then that person will most likely be found in contempt of court. Originally this person will most likely receive a civil contempt charge, which will result in fines every single day the person is not in compliance with the order of the court. The [BC Supreme Court rules at 22-7][1] defines the parameters for failure to comply with court orders. At rule 22-8, it states that a person may be apprehended if they are found in contempt: (4)A person who is guilty of an act or omission described in Rule 12-5 (25) or 22-7 (5), in addition to being subject to any consequences prescribed by those rules, is guilty of contempt of court and subject to the court's power to punish contempt of court. (5)If the court is of the opinion that a person may be guilty of contempt of court, it may order, by warrant in Form 115 directed to a sheriff or other officer of the court or to a peace officer, that the person be apprehended and brought before the court. As an alternative type of sanction for civil contempt, the court can also have the person jailed until they comply with the order. In the United States, there is generally no limit on how long you can be jailed for civil contempt (the record is 14 years), and you have substantially lower due process protections (for instance, you don't have a right to a jury); both of those are because you can free yourself at any time by simply complying with the order. The court can also impose criminal contempt sanctions. Civil contempt is to get you to obey the order; criminal contempt is to punish you for disobeying. Criminal contempt sanctions are unconditional; it's a crime like other crimes, and a criminal sentence looks like &quot;$50,000 fine&quot; or &quot;30 days in jail&quot; rather than &quot;$1,000 per day until you obey the order&quot; or &quot;jail until you obey the order.&quot; [1]: http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/LOC/complete/statreg/--%20C%20--/Court%20Rules%20Act%20[RSBC%201996]%20c.%2080/05_Regulations/17_168_2009%20-%20Supreme%20Court%20Civil%20Rules/168_2009_03.xml#rule22-7 BC Supreme Court rules, rule 22-7
This is a civil case, taking away your freedom is only for criminal offenses. Not paying your bills is not a criminal offense. It is up to the creditor to look for your assets, etc. A court can make you show up and answer questions about your assets and income. While you are in court the judge can make you give your gold watch to your creditor. Outside the parameters of the question there are circumstances like failure to pay child support when you do have the funds that can lead to incarceration. In some places you can be jailed for contempt of court if the court requires your presence to let the creditor have the ability to try to get access to your assets and you do not show up.
As far as I understand, no. In Canada, everyone has the constitutional right to be free from any cruel or unusual punishment, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. If you're guilty of a crime, well then, you're guilty. You're either going to be tried in court (and if you were guilty of that crime, then you will probably be found guilty), or you will plead as such. Before being tried, you could try to plea bargain with the prosecutor: plead guilty and be sentenced to a lesser charge. Say you were charged with assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm. You thought that the punishment was cruel or unusual - and thought that the trial judge had made an error in the law. In this case, you can make an appeal to a higher court. There are also other things that can factor this: mitigating and aggravating circumstances. If many circumstances are mitigating, then it may make way for a lower punishment, and vice versa with aggravating circumstances, where punishment may be higher. Again, this is something where if something was erred, you can appeal to a higher court. However, just because you think a sentence is too long won't constitute cruel or unusual punishment. In R. vs Latimer, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that minimum sentences, even if within special circumstances, will not constitute cruel or unusual punishment, and be upheld. Originally, he had been sentenced only to one year, based on the recommendation of the jury. He had been charged with second-degree murder. The Supreme Court reinstated the default punishment: A life sentence with no eligibility of parole for ten years.
If you want to have some fun and increase the likelihood that you will go to trial soon, you can file a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the Speedy Trial Act. If you have co-defendants they may be the reason for delay. You could then move for a severance. On a slightly different note, since 95% of federal criminal cases result in the imposition of a penalty on the accused, you should start calculating your guidelines.
Yes It's not uncommon. In fact I am aware of at least one case where the trial judge referred it to appeal before he made his decision on the basis that whichever way he decided the law was so unsettled that grounds for appeal would occur. In that case the court of appeal called up the trial judge to sit on the 3 judge appeal a) because he knew the case and b) because you don't get to not make a decision because it's hard sonny-jim.
If it is necessary, yes Generally, the defendant must affirmatively show (i.e., introduce some evidence) that (a) the harm they sought to avoid outweighs the danger of the prohibited conduct they are charged with; (b) they had no reasonable alternative; (c) they ceased to engage in the prohibited conduct as soon as the danger passed; and (d) they themselves did not create the danger they sought to avoid. The necessity defence is recognised in most common law and civil law jurisdictions and in international law. In common law jurisdictions, the “harm” must be some sort of clear and imminent peril to life and safety, such as the situation you describe (although B needs to prove all the elements). In civil law jurisdictions, the peril can be more distant such as the successful defence in 2020 in Switzerland of protesters using it where the threat was climate change.
Assume that this happened in a matter that goes to court. In civil court, there is no "innocent until/unless proven guilty". In civil court, the judge hears everyone's story, and decides which story is more likely to be true. So I tell the judge "I sent a letter by registered mail; this is what was in the letter, and the post office reported to me that they delivered the mail, and someone signed for it". And you say "I never received a letter". The judge will believe me and the post office. You say "I received a letter and signed for it, but there was just a birthday card inside". Who does the judge believe? Does he or she believe that you received a letter with the contents I said and you are lying about it, or does she believe that I sent you an unsolicited birthday card by registered mail? Why would I do that? So they believe me. Now if you said "I received a registered letter containing just a birthday court, so I immediately called my secretary and three other people in the office to see this and to verify there was nothing but the birthday card, and here they are as witnesses", then the court might start believing you.
Only in a civil case Yes, in a civil case, Alice generally can call Bob as a witness to take the stand. In many cases, this is done very early, locking in their testimony, before expert witnesses or other evidence by the plaintiff are presented to try and undermine the testimony. Alice may ask only questions that have relevance to the case. Let's take for example a dispute about a contract: Alice may ask Bob if he engaged in negotiations to form the contract, about the matter of the contract, if he signed the contract, or how he (or his employees) fulfilled (or not) the contract. Pretty much everything that pertains to the contract or the execution thereof. This does not extend to the settlement of the case or attempts thereof. Alice may not ask if Bob has an affair with Clarice unless that somehow is material to the contract at hand. Alice may not re-ask questions where an objection was sustained in the same way. However, Bob might not need to answer all questions (there are things that are banned from being asked), especially as Bob's attorney will object to questions. A few examples of competent questioning can be seen towards the end of My Cousin Vinnie, though this is a criminal trial. Never in a criminal trial In a criminal trial, not only can the prosecution not call Bob to the stand, he has to elect to go to the stand to even be questioned by the prosecution. That is because he can &quot;plead the 5th&quot;. There is a tiny exception for civil cases, where they can do so there too.