Sault Ste. Marie smoke injunction stays, but judge declines contempt finding

An Ontario judge found that a Sault Ste. Marie man deliberately breached a smoke-related injunction, but declined to make a formal contempt finding because he had complied with the order for more than two years by the time the motions were heard.

In Thompson et al. v. Sirie, 2026 ONSC 5381, released September 28, 2026, Justice Chiappetta of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice left the existing injunction intact and rejected Nick Edward Sirie’s attempt to narrow it. The ruling did not excuse the earlier breaches or lift the restrictions.

The judge also allowed neighbours Michael Charles Thompson and Barbara Marie Thompson to increase the damages they are claiming, and ruled that they were entitled to substantial-indemnity costs on all four motions. No damages were awarded, and the amount of costs remained to be determined.

An order broader than a ban on wood fires

The dispute concerns the Thompsons’ ability to enjoy their property without smoke from the neighbouring property. In 2023, Justice Varpio granted an interlocutory injunction prohibiting Sirie, and anyone else on or around his property, from burning firewood or other substances or materials there pending a final order.

The order was deliberately broad and absolute. As Chiappetta explained, its purpose was to protect the Thompsons’ enjoyment of their property and keep them free from the potential harm of smoke inhalation. The earlier judge had been concerned that Sirie would look for openings in the wording.

Sirie repeatedly sought to limit the restriction to firewood. His latest motion asked the court to narrow both the prohibited material and the area covered, restricting the order to firewood burning in his backyard.

Chiappetta rejected that request. The rule invoked to vary an order permits relief based on fraud or facts arising or discovered after the order was made, but neither ground applied here. Sirie had not appealed the original decision and could not use the motion simply to argue its scope again.

The conduct the judge found breached the injunction

The barbecue findings concerned smoke generated after cooking had finished, not ordinary cooking alone. The Thompsons’ lawyer had initially indicated that normal use of a natural-gas barbecue was not intended to be restricted. Chiappetta found that Sirie exploited that opening.

On two occasions in July 2023, after cooking dinner, he left the barbecue burning and smoking for about an hour and a half without attending to it or cooking anything. Positioned against the fence separating the properties, it interfered with the Thompsons’ enjoyment of their yard. The judge found that he had used it deliberately to create a nuisance. The earlier position concerning normal barbecue use was later withdrawn.

The judge also found that a propane-fuelled backyard fire in September 2023 breached the order. Sirie said it was intended to provide warmth, but Chiappetta concluded that he had deliberately ignored the prohibition on burning other substances or materials.

Further incidents involved machinery and a vehicle. In April 2024, machinery on Sirie’s patio was started and stopped repeatedly, producing smoke when Mr. Thompson was outside. Sirie disputed the neighbours’ description of it as a generator and said he was working on a motor. The judge did not need to resolve that label: the repeated starts when Mr. Thompson went outside, followed by shutdowns when he returned indoors, supported a finding of intentional interference.

In May 2024, Sirie revved a vehicle’s engine for two hours while the Thompsons were in their backyard, releasing smoke and stopping when they went indoors. Chiappetta treated that timing as further evidence of an intention to disrupt their outdoor use.

All three contempt elements were proved

The court applied the civil-contempt test described in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Carey v. Laiken. It required proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the order was clear and unequivocal, that Sirie knew about it, and that he intentionally breached it.

Chiappetta found all three elements established. Sirie’s disagreement with the order’s breadth did not make it ambiguous. His argument that liquefied petroleum gas was a mixture rather than a substance did not create an exception to the order’s ordinary wording.

The judge also rejected any suggestion that the delay in formally issuing and entering the written order excused non-compliance. Sirie had personally received the earlier reasons, had counsel at the time, and knew the terms. His repeated efforts to have those terms narrowed showed that he understood them.

As for intention, the court found a pattern of interpreting the order to suit his own purposes and deliberately doing what it prohibited. That was a judicial finding about the breaches, not merely an allegation by the neighbours.

Why there was nevertheless no contempt finding

Proving the elements did not end the analysis. Civil contempt is discretionary, and Chiappetta distinguished enforcing obedience to a court order from punishing past misconduct.

The court had to uphold the authority of its orders, but overusing contempt could undermine the seriousness of the remedy. Its purpose in this case was to secure compliance with the injunction.

By the September 2026 hearing, the last breach shown by the evidence was more than two years old. Chiappetta concluded that Sirie had changed his conduct after understanding the serious potential consequences of contempt. It was only because of that sustained compliance that the judge declined to make the finding.

The result was therefore neither a contempt conviction nor a finding that Sirie had complied all along. No contempt sanction was imposed. The injunction continued, and the judge expressly expected strict compliance rather than renewed attempts to reinterpret its terms.

Larger claims allowed, but no damages awarded

The Thompsons were permitted to amend their claim from $80,000 to $200,000 for each plaintiff. These are amounts sought in the continuing lawsuit, not amounts the court ordered Sirie to pay.

Sirie opposed the amendment on the basis that it would take the case outside the simplified-procedure regime. Chiappetta found no evidence the parties had been proceeding under that regime and said the proposed amendment would not, in any event, take it outside the applicable rule. There was no demonstrated prejudice, a trial date had not yet been scheduled, and the judge accepted the reason for seeking the increased claims, citing developments in decisions about nuisance damages.

Although the judge declined a contempt finding, the Thompsons were the more successful parties on those motions, having established the earlier breaches despite the later compliance. Together with their successful amendment motion and Sirie’s unsuccessful variation motion, that entitled them to substantial-indemnity costs on all four motions. Their lawyer was directed to submit a costs outline, with an opportunity for Sirie to respond. The reasons did not fix a dollar amount.

The decision concerns enforcement of this particular interlocutory injunction. It is not a province-wide rule about backyard barbecues, a permanent final nuisance ruling or a determination of the Thompsons’ damages.