Ms. Balanko appealed an Order holding her in civil contempt. She and the Respondent, Ms. Konkolus, were sisters and beneficiaries of their father’s Estate, with multiple legal actions arising from disputes over the Estate and their respective roles. In 2022, the Court issued an Order (the Romaine Order) directing Ms. Balanko to retain legal counsel for the Estate, provide an unredacted accounting of her handling of the Estate, and make distributions to beneficiaries.

Despite appealing the Romaine Order, which was later dismissed, Ms. Balanko failed to comply fully. She provided the required accounting after a contempt Application was filed, but delayed retaining counsel until May 2024, contrary to the Order’s terms. Under Rule 10.52(3)(a)(i), civil contempt requires proof of clear terms of the order, the individual’s knowledge of the order, and intentional non-compliance. On Application to the Court of King’s Bench, each of these elements were found to have been established by the Chambers Judge. Ms. Balanko then appealed.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable or overriding error in the Chambers Judge’s application of the test for contempt, or her factual findings. The Romaine Order was deemed clear and enforceable, and Ms. Balanko’s explanations, including claims of financial inability and procedural misunderstandings, did not constitute reasonable excuses. The Court reiterated that orders are enforceable until set aside, rejecting arguments about the Order’s propriety as irrelevant to the contempt finding.

The Appeal was dismissed, and enhanced costs were awarded to the Respondent, reflecting the Appellant’s failure to withdraw the Appeal following the dismissal of her challenge to the Romaine Order. Rule 9.4.2(c) was invoked, such that the Appellant did not need to approve the resulting Order.