Contempt requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; a plausible interpretation of an interim order defeated the charge.

Contempt jurisdiction is an extraordinary, quasi-criminal power that must be exercised with care, and the alleged violation of an interim order must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Where the interim order was reasonably capable of more than one interpretation and the respondents acted on an interpretation that was not wholly unwarranted, contempt could not be sustained and the alleged contemnors were entitled to the benefit of doubt. On that basis, the alleged contempt was not established and the contempt petition failed; the Court therefore did not consider the apology.

---

---

Issues: Whether the alleged violation of the interim orders amounted to contempt of court and warranted punishment.

Analysis: The contempt jurisdiction is an extraordinary power to be used with care and caution. A proceeding for contempt is quasi-criminal in nature, and the alleged contempt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Where the language of the interim order was capable of more than one reasonable interpretation, and the respondents had acted on an interpretation that was not wholly unwarranted, the charge of contempt could not be sustained. In such circumstances, the alleged contemnors were entitled to the benefit of doubt, and the Court declined to examine the apology.

Conclusion: The alleged contempt was not established; the contempt petition failed.

---