The Applicant applied to the Court for a finding that the Respondent was in Civil Contempt. This case involved complex family law issues, with both the mother and father having violated Court Orders. In this instance, the father aimed to have the mother found in Civil Contempt for breaching a Shared Parenting Order by unilaterally changing the child’s school and residence, and interfering with the father’s relationship with the child. The mother also accused the father of Contempt for posting on the internet, contrary to an internet posting prohibition imposed by the Trial Judge.

The Court considered Rules 10.52, 10.53 and 10.55, regarding declarations of Civil Contempt and the corresponding punishments. Justice Yungwirth examined pertinent case law, referencing the Supreme Court of Canada’s finding in Carey v Laiken, 2015 SCC 17 that, to prove Civil Contempt, one must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that an intentional act or omission breached a clear Order of which the alleged contemnor was aware. Yungwirth J. noted that applying the test for Civil Contempt and determining suitable consequences in family law requires special consideration. This is due to the necessity of balancing the duty to uphold the dignity of the Courts and the authority of their Orders with the obligation to protect the best interests of children.

Justice Yungwirth found that the mother had breached Court Orders and a Trial Judgment, and was in Contempt. The Court then analyzed Rule 10.53(2) to ascertain appropriate penalties for the finding of Contempt, including punitive costs.

In determining the suitable remedy, the Court took into account Rule 10.31 and the seminal case of McAllister v Calgary (City), 2021 ABCA 25 regarding litigation costs. After considering the submissions and behavior of both parties throughout the litigation, Justice Yungwirth determined that a fair and reasonable punitive costs award addressing the mother's Contempt and any litigation misconduct amounted to $90,000, prior to any deductions for the father's misconduct. Yungwirth J. subsequently lowered the amount from $90,000 to $45,000, acknowledging the father's culpability in violating Court Orders himself, and his role in perpetuating the ongoing conflict.