MELLA v 336239 ALBERTA LTD (DAVE’S DIESEL REPAIR), 2016 ABCA 226
10.52: Declaration of civil contempt
10.53: Punishment for civil contempt of Court
14.48: Stay pending appeal
The Plaintiff had sued the Defendants for fraudulently misappropriating funds, and obtained an Attachment Order directing the Defendants to limit their monthly expenditures. The Defendants were found in contempt of the Attachment Order for having used more money than permitted, and for not providing adequate expenditure records. After Judgment was obtained, the Court of Queen’s Bench again found the Defendants in contempt: the Defendants had failed to pay the monetary sanctions imposed, but also failed to comply with other parts of the first contempt Order, including limiting household expenditures and producing financial records. The Defendants appealed the second contempt Order, and applied for a Stay of the second contempt Order pursuant to Pursuant to Rule 14.48.
With respect to the Stay Application, Schutz J.A. first considered whether there was a serious question to be tried, including whether the Defendants had failed to comply with the first contempt Order. Justice Schutz noted that Rule 10.52(3)(a)(i) does not exclude the use of the contempt power to punish a party for defiance of a mandatory injunction explicitly limiting household expenditures and requiring production of financial records. It is not determinative that the first contempt Order also required money to be paid. Rule 10.53 also expressly authorizes the imposition of fines, imprisonment and costs. Ultimately, the Defendants failed to demonstrate any error in the Court below and Justice Schutz held that the Appeal had no possibility of success. The Stay was denied.View CanLII Details