LYMER v JONSSON

The Plaintiff appealed the Case Management Justice’s decision dismissing their Application for a Stay of civil contempt sanction proceedings. This Appeal addressed the issue of whether the principle in R v Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 (“Jordan”), specifically the 30-month time limit for criminal cases to be brought to trial in a superior court, applied to civil contempt sanction proceedings.

The Plaintiff was an undischarged bankrupt, who had been held in civil contempt on November 6, 2014, pursuant to Rule 10.52, and was held to remain in contempt on February 14, 2017. A civil contempt sanction hearing was held in April 2018, but the resulting decision was then set aside on the basis that the Plaintiff had not received a full and fair hearing. Questioning for a new hearing was completed on March 21, 2023.

On June 28, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the Application for a Stay of the civil contempt sanction proceedings. The Plaintiff, relying on the Jordan principle, alleged in-part that their right to be tried within a reasonable time pursuant to Section 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”). The Case Management Justice dismissed the Application, finding that the Jordan principle could not be invoked in support of the Plaintiff’s delay argument.

On Appeal, the Plaintiff argued that the Alberta Court of Appeal had previously set aside portions of contempt orders that conflict with mobility rights guaranteed by Section 6 of the Charter, and there was no principled reason why Section 11(b) of the Charter should not apply to civil contempt proceedings. The Defendant argued that Section 11(b) of the Charter does not apply to private disputes that do not involve a state actor or where no party has been charged with an offence.

After reviewing relevant decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada, the Panel held that Section 11(b) of the Charter does not apply to civil contempt sanction proceedings, finding that constitutional duties should not be imposed on private parties involved in civil contempt proceedings not involving a state actor. The Court also held that the Jordan principle was not applicable to civil contempt sanction proceedings because, unlike in criminal proceedings, contemnors had the opportunity to purge their contempt and have their sanction waived or suspended pursuant to Rule 10.53.

The Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s Appeal.