The Applicant sought a Stay, pursuant to Rule 14.48, of Dunlop J.’s Order that the Applicant physically attend before him on February 29 to show cause why additional sanctions should not be imposed for failing to comply with the terms of a previous Order. Justice Watson began by noting that “… an application for a stay - or in effect an injunction in relation to something - are subject to the same test which is in the nature of an equitable remedy being granted by a court”, citing the three-part test for a Stay from RJR-MacDonald Inc. v Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 SCR 311.

The Respondent argued that the lack of the Applicant’s “clean hands” was a barrier to the Application. Justice Watson agreed that the clean hands doctrine falls within the general boundaries of the types of policies that are applied to equitable remedies. However, the doctrine was that not applicable to the specific issue of the Application, being whether the Applicant had to attend in person as ordered by Dunlop J.

Justice Watson found there was an “arguable question” on whether there was a serious issue to be tried, that being whether it was necessary to impose a personal attendance requirement on the Applicant. As to whether the irreparable harm branch of the test was met, Watson J.A. rejected the Applicant’s Affidavit evidence that she was so destitute that she could not travel back to Canada from Thailand. Further, the Court noted, citing Rule 10.52, that the “purpose of civil contempt is to act in a regulatory manner and in a coercive manner to ensure compliance with the orders that are made by the court.” Justice Watson commented that “[c]ivil contempt is used with caution in the sense that it is mainly to make sure that orders of the court are complied with.” As such, “it is difficult for me to see irreparable harm in her favour.”

On a balance of convenience, Justice Watson was not satisfied that the Court of Appeal should interfere with Dunlop J.’s Order, noting that that it was an Order that Dunlop J. could have changed on his own and that the involvement of the Court of Appeal of Alberta in any phase of a process decision, “especially on a small point mentioned here”, would be damaging to the operation of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench as it would be harmful to its ability to make authoritative Orders. In the result, the Application for a Stay was denied.