The Applicant applied for, among other things, an Order declaring the Respondent to be in contempt of two Disclosure Orders, dated June 29, 2023 (the “June 29 Order”) and November 12, 2023 (the “November 12 Order”), respectively. The Respondent was declared to be in contempt of the November 12 Order.

Citing Carey v Laiken, 2015 SCC 17, Yungwirth J. commented that the test for Civil Contempt is whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of an intentional act or omission that is in fact in breach of a clear Order of which the alleged contemnor has notice (the “Test”). The Test is codified in Rule 10.52(3) in similar words but makes express the provision that the breach of an Order must be without reasonable excuse.

Yungwirth J, citing JLZ v CMZ, 2021 ABCA 200, further commented that the application of the Test and the consideration of the appropriate consequences where contempt is found have special considerations in the family law context. In the family law context, the Court must balance the obligation to safeguard the dignity of the Courts and the force of their Orders, and the obligation to safeguard the best interests of children. As such, there have been some constraints put on the Court’s ability to use the Civil Contempt remedy. In family cases, Courts should use Civil Contempt “sparingly and as a last resort” (MEL (P) v BJL, 2013 ABQB 227).

Yungwirth J. went on to state that there are many ways for a request for disclosure to be made. Once there has been an Order for disclosure, a litigant must obey that Order. The failure to do so prolongs litigation, which is not in the best interests of children or families. It can also prevent a proper child support Order from being determined, which is not fair to children, as child support is their right.

Yungwirth J. held that because the June 29 Order, on its face, did not detail exactly what was to be provided, it would not be appropriate to declare the Respondent to be in contempt of it.           Having found that the required elements for a declaration of Contempt have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the Respondent offered no explanation for his noncompliance, Yungwirth J. declared the Respondent to be in Contempt of the November 12 Order.