HRE v HS

This was an Appeal from a Chambers Judge’s Order dismissing an Application to hold the Respondent in civil contempt for alleged non-compliance with financial disclosure orders (the “Disclosure Orders”), as well as an associated Costs Award.

Applying the test in Carey v Laiken, 2015 SCC 17, and Rules 10.51 and 10.52, the Chambers Judge found that the first two elements were established — the order stated clearly and unequivocally what should be done, and the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Order. However, the Appellant failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Respondent intentionally breached the Disclosure Orders. The Chambers Judge further held that, even if all elements were met, discretion would be exercised to decline issuing a contempt declaration.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that contempt findings are discretionary and are reviewable on a reasonableness standard. The Court rejected the Appellant’s argument that the alleged non‑compliance was not “historical”, noting the Disclosure Orders dated from 2021 to 2023 and the deadlines had expired. The Court concluded that the Chambers Judge properly considered the status of the Action, including that no further disclosure was sought, and the availability of alternative remedies such as adverse inferences in the appropriate forum.

The Court dismissed the Appellant’s procedural fairness arguments, holding that the Chambers Judge was entitled to consider background submissions and the absence of cross‑examination on Affidavits. The Court found no breach of fairness, emphasizing that Judges are not required to refer to each piece of evidence in their reasons and self-represented litigants are expected to familiarize themselves with applicable procedures. The Court also dismissed the Appeal of the Costs Award, finding no reviewable error in applying the default rule that costs follow the event.

In the result, the Court dismissed the Appeal. After hearing submissions on costs, the Court held that Rule 14.88 applied, such that the successful party was entitled to costs. Rule 9.4(2)(c) was invoked for the Court to prepare the resulting Order.