Armoyan v. Armoyan, (2015) 361 N.S.R.(2d) 151 (SC)

• Judge: Forgeron, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: April 29, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2015), 361 N.S.R.(2d) 151 (SC);2015 NSSC 174

Armoyan v. Armoyan (2015), 361 N.S.R.(2d) 151 (SC);

    1137 A.P.R. 151

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JN.023

Lisa Armoyan (applicant) v. Vrege Sami Armoyan (respondent)

(SFHISOA 080027; 2015 NSSC 174)

Indexed As: Armoyan v. Armoyan

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Family Division

Forgeron, J.

June 15, 2015.

Summary:

A husband owed over $1.6 million in spousal and child support arrears, which he refused to pay notwithstanding he had the financial ability to do so. The wife applied to have the husband found in contempt of the court order.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, found the husband in contempt.

Civil Rights - Topic 8404

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal proceedings - Double jeopardy - Pursuant to a Florida court order, which was registered in Nova Scotia under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, a husband owed over $1.6 Million in spousal and child support arrears, which he refused to pay - The wife was in dire financial circumstances - The wife applied to have the husband found in contempt - The husband filed no evidence and failed to appear, without informing his lawyer - The hearing proceeded - His lawyer argued that the Kienapple principle and s. 11(h) of the Charter precluded a contempt finding, because the husband was convicted of contempt in Florida - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, held that neither the Kienapple principle nor s. 11(h) applied to shield the husband from contempt - There was no evidence that the elements of contempt were the same in both jurisdictions - There was no evidence that the Florida contempt orders were based on the same elements of the offence of contempt currently before the court - There was no evidence that legal distinctions between Canadian and American authorities respecting contempt were no longer valid - Finally, the husband's failure to pay support as required by the court order continued after the Florida contempt orders issued - See paragraphs 60 to 64.

Contempt - Topic 684

What constitutes contempt - Judgment and orders - Disobedience of or non-compliance with - Pursuant to a Florida court order, which was registered in Nova Scotia under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, a husband owed over $1.6 Million in spousal and child support arrears, which he refused to pay - The wife was in dire financial circumstances - The wife applied to have the husband found in contempt - The husband filed no evidence and failed to appear, without informing his lawyer - The hearing proceeded - His lawyer argued that the husband should not be found in contempt because he paid some money to the wife and directly to the children and that he was shielded from contempt for procedural and technical reasons - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, found the husband in contempt - The court order was clear and unambiguous - The husband had actual knowledge of the order - In fact, he unsuccessfully challenged registration of the court order - The failure to comply with the court order was intentional - There were no discretionary reasons to not find the husband in contempt - The husband was not acting in good faith and did not take reasonable steps to comply - The husband simply chose to ignore a court order notwithstanding he had the financial resources to pay the ordered support - The husband was judgment-proof because he transferred all of his Canadian assets out of the country - The court rejected the husband's argument that there were procedural and technical deficiencies that shielded him from a contempt finding - The court ordered the husband to appear at the penalty phase of the contempt hearing and to purge the contempt by paying the support arrears - See paragraphs 1 to 68.

Cases Noticed:

Godin v. Godin (2012), 317 N.S.R.(2d) 204; 1003 A.P.R. 204; 2012 NSCA 54, refd to. [para. 17].

Sabourin and Sun Group of Companies v. Laiken (2015), 470 N.R. 89; 332 O.A.C. 142; 2015 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 30].

MacLellan v. Giovannetti (2012), 317 N.S.R.(2d) 311; 1003 A.P.R. 311; 2012 NSSC 212, refd to. [para. 42].

Vale Inco Ltd. v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers, Local 6500 et al., [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 3039; 2010 ONSC 3039, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Van Rassel, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 225; 105 N.R. 103; 27 Q.A.C. 285, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Johnson (S.G.) (1994), 156 N.B.R.(2d) 119; 401 A.P.R. 119 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Chamczuk (E.M.), 2010 ABQB 434, varried (2010), 499 A.R. 212; 514 W.A.C. 212; 2010 ABCA 380, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Steinhubl (J.K.) (2010), 492 A.R. 1; 2010 ABQB 602, affd. (2012), 536 A.R. 184; 559 W.A.C. 184; 2012 ABCA 260, refd to. [para. 63].

Pro Swing Inc. v. Elta Golf Inc. (2006), 354 N.R. 201; 218 O.A.C. 339; 2006 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 63].

Statutes Noticed:

Maintenance Enforcement Act, S.N.S. 2002, c. 9, sect. 7(1) [para. 44]; sect. 10(1) [para. 45]; sect. 11(1)(a) [para. 46]; sect. 12(1), sect. 12(3) [para. 47].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Halsbury's Laws of Canada (2014 Reissue), § HEV-216 [para. 62, footnote 1].

Counsel:

Harold Niman and Leigh Davis, for the applicant;

Gordon Kelly and Stacy O'Neill, for the respondent.

This application was heard on April 29, 2015, at Halifax, N.S., before Forgeron, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, who delivered the following judgment on June 15, 2015.