BDM v MMM, 2020 ABQB 288


4.16: Dispute resolution processes
6.9: How the Court considers applications
10.52: Declaration of civil contempt
10.53: Punishment for civil contempt of Court

Case Summary

The parties to a longstanding and contentious family law dispute each filed Applications seeking numerous interim remedies. In the wake of the COVID-19 public health crisis, the parties’ scheduled case management meeting was adjourned, in place of which the parties consented to the Court’s use of a documents-only process pursuant to Rule 6.9.

Justice Mandziuk considered and resolved the issues raised in the parties’ cross-Applications. In particular, the Court addressed one party’s request for a declaration of contempt pursuant to Rule 10.52, ultimately finding against such declaration and declining to consider the penalties prescribed in Rule 10.53.

It was noted that while the parties’ required participation in alternative dispute resolution had been waived to expedite the Trial process pursuant to Rule 4.16(2), Court access restrictions thereafter impeded Trial scheduling. Nonetheless, Justice Mandziuk sought to encourage resolution, setting a requirement for leave in advance of filing further Applications, and directing the parties to attend mediation with a registered family mediator pursuant to Rule 4.16.

View CanLII Details