In particular, Cote J.A. explained that “It must not be thought that contempt of court requires an intent to disobey the court, or even an intent to do an act which is in fact forbidden. Where someone is ordered by the court to do something, he or she must use a sufficient degree of diligence to perform, or to have the act performed”: Michel v. Lafrentz (1998), 219 A.R. 192 at para. 21, 1998 ABCA 231. B. Are these three basic elements proved in this case? 1. There was a court order.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.