This Decision arose from an Application, pursuant to Rule 10.51, requiring that the Respondents show cause as to why they were not in contempt of an Order to pay disputed monies into trust. 

The Court agreed with the Applicant that the Respondents had failed to comply with the Order on its face. In so finding, the Court dismissed the Respondents’ argument that a contempt Order would amount to a finding of contempt in relation to “an Order to pay money,” in contravention of Rule 10.52(3). Rule 10.52(3)(a)(i) allows a judge to declare a person to be in civil contempt “if the person, without reasonable excuse, does not comply with an order, other than an order to pay money…”.

The Court confirmed that there are two types of Judgments or Orders which direct a person to pay money: those which direct a person to pay money to another person and those which direct a person to pay money into court.

The Court cited Dickie v Dickie, 262 DLR (4th) 622 for the proposition that: “Where money is ordered to be paid not to the creditor but into court. and where the effect of the order is not to create a fixed debt obligation but to secure a debt obligation, then the order is not an order for the payment of money under [now Rule 10.52(3)(a)(i)].”

The Court found the Respondents in contempt.