{"id":6566,"date":"2024-01-10T14:05:43","date_gmt":"2024-01-10T19:05:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/civil-contempt-standards-implications-enforcement\/"},"modified":"2025-06-30T15:13:25","modified_gmt":"2025-06-30T19:13:25","slug":"civil-contempt-standards-implications-enforcement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/civil-contempt-standards-implications-enforcement\/","title":{"rendered":"Kelana Holdings Ltd. v 393510 Alberta Ltd.<\/i>: Civil contempt standards and implications for enforcement"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A recent decision by the Alberta Court of King\u2019s Bench in Kelana Holdings Ltd. v 393510 Alberta Ltd., <\/em>2023 ABKB 486 [Kelana<\/em>],[1]<\/a> provides clarity for parties looking to exercise their rights of enforcement when a party does not comply with their statutory obligations.  In Kelana, <\/em>the Court of King\u2019s Bench considered the requirements for civil contempt under the Civil Enforcement Act, <\/em>RSA 2000, c C-15 (the \u201cCEA<\/em>\u201d),[2]<\/a> as well as the requirements for civil contempt due to failure to abide by an Order or a similar directive, under the Alberta Rules of Court (the \u201cARC<\/em>\u201d).[3]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 13(2)(k) of CEA: Civil Contempt for the Failure to Deliver Seized Property<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In Kelana<\/em>, the Applicant sought an Order for civil contempt pursuant to Section 13(2)(k) of the CEA <\/em>for failing to deliver property which was specified in a Notice of Seizure and Addendum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 13(2)(k) of the CEA <\/em>provides that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

(k)      where a person<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(i)   is under a duty to deliver to a bailiff or an agency personal property that is under seizure, and<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(ii)  defaults in delivering the personal property to the bailiff or agency within a reasonable time after being required to do so by the bailiff or the agency,<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

the Court on application may hold that person liable for civil contempt and award damages and costs against that person.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under Rule 10.52(3)(b) of the ARC,<\/em> the Court is authorized to issue an Order for civil contempt if a relevant enactment explicitly allows for such a finding.[4]<\/a> However, prior to Kelana<\/em>, there was limited case law interpreting and applying the established jurisprudence for a finding of contempt pursuant to Section 13(2)(k) of the CEA.<\/em>[5]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Requirements for Civil Contempt <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Under the common law, a party applying for a finding of contempt must establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, the following three requirements:[6]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. The Order alleged to have been breached must state clearly and unequivocally what should and should not be done;<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. The party alleged to have breached the Order must have had actual knowledge of it; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. The party allegedly in breach must have intentionally done the act that the Order prohibits or intentionally failed to do the act that the Order compels<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    (collectively the \u201cCarey Requirements<\/strong>\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In considering what meaning to ascribe to the term \u201ccivil contempt\u201d under the CEA<\/em>, the Court in Kelana<\/em> explored the various iterations of civil contempt under the ARC<\/em>, excluding instances based on conduct in the courtroom. In so doing, the Court made the following findings:<\/p>\n\n\n\n