HABIB v HABIB, 2026 ABCA 263

The Applicants applied for a stay of a Case Management Order that declared the Applicants in contempt of court and directed distribution of funds held in Court to the Respondent.

Grosse J.A. dismissed the Stay Application for two reasons. First, the Applicants failed to establish an arguable case on Appeal. Second, the Applicants failed to demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable harm if the funds were distributed. As such, there was nothing to balance against the Respondent’s interest in having immediate access to funds that the Applicants admitted belonged to the Respondent, and that the Case Management Judge had already ordered distributed.

The Respondents sought to defer costs until the Case Management Judge released a penalty decision for contempt. They argued that, if the Case Management Judge awarded full indemnity or enhanced costs, they could rely on that direction and Rule 14.88 to seek costs in the Court of Appeal on the same basis. Grosse J.A. noted that Rule 14.88 applied unless the Court ordered otherwise. However, departing from Rule 14.88, the Court declined to defer costs because the Stay Application concerned the distribution of undisputed funds, which was not directly tied to the merits of the contempt findings or any contempt penalty. In addition, although the Respondents incurred significant fees to review numerous records to prepare for the Application, Grosse J.A. found that the Respondents brought those costs upon themselves.

Last, the Court awarded the Respondents enhanced costs of $4,000 because they had to respond to an urgent Application with only one or two days of notice, particularly where the Applicants’ position became clear only as the matter developed.