What is the test for wilful disregard of a court order?

[16] The intention or the mental state of the person charged with civil contempt of court, that is the mens rea of the offence, does not require that the defendant intended to disobey or flout an order of the court. The offence consists of the intentional doing of an action that is, in fact, prohibited by the order. The absence of contumacious contempt is a mitigating but not an exculpatory circumstance. Wilfulness is required in the sense that the conduct be deliberate and not accidental or unintentional. See Ramcharitar v. Ramcharitar and Jagam, supra, at paragraph [221]. The wilful intentional act here is the refusal to do what was required by the court order to be done. See Ramcharitar v. Ramcharitar and Jagam, supra, at paragraph [223]. In the family law environment, with its undertow of feelings, it is too easy for one party to believe that he or she knows right, even after a matter has been determined by the court and to decide when to ignore the order. See Ramcharitar v. Ramcharitar and Jagam, supra, at paragraph [234].