What is the test for contempt of court?

Notwithstanding the trial judge’s diligent and repeated efforts to ensure that the appellant had proper notice of the allegations and a full opportunity to fairly present her position, I have, respectfully, come to the conclusion that in the circumstances of this case the judge erred in finding the appellant guilty of contempt. I believe many of the unique and troubling features of this case have led to a result that requires our intervention. Before exploring some of those details, I think it important to emphasize certain fundamental principles. Many of these were explored by Justice Farrar in Soper v. Gaudet, 2011 NSCA 11. From that and the jurisprudence cited therein, we know (and I am here extracting those principles which are especially important in this case) that: 1. finding a party in contempt falls within a trial judge’s discretion; 2. on appeal, the standard of review applied to the exercise of that discretion is one of reasonableness. 3. we are not to substitute our own view for the judge’s discretion unless we conclude that the judge erred in law; misapprehended material evidence; or produced a result which is obviously unjust; 4. notwithstanding its civil nature, contempt of court is quasi-criminal; 5. the standard of proof in contempt proceedings is proof beyond a reasonable doubt; 6. the party alleging contempt has the burden of proof; 7. in a case of civil contempt the following elements must be established beyond a reasonable doubt: (i) the terms of the order must be clear and unambiguous; (ii) proper notice must be given to the contemnor of the terms of the order; (iii) there must be clear proof that the contemnor intentionally committed an act which is in fact prohibited by the terms of the order, and (iv) mens rea must be proven which, in the context of civil contempt proceedings, means that while it is not necessary to prove a specific intent to bring the court into disrepute, flout a court order, or interfere with the due course of justice, it is essential to prove an intention to knowingly and wilfully do some act which is contrary to a court order. . . .