BG International Ltd. et al. v. Grynberg Production Corp. et al., 2009 ABQB 452

• Judge: Hawco, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 26, 2009
• Citations: 2009 ABQB 452;(2009), 486 A.R. 51 (QB)

BG Intl. Ltd. v. Grynberg Production Corp. (2009), 486 A.R. 51 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] A.R. TBEd. AU.025

BG International Limited, BG Group plc d/b/a BG North America, LLC, Robert Wilson and Frank Chapman (applicants) v. Grynberg Production Corporation, Pricaspian Development Corporation and Jack J. Grynberg (respondents)

(0801 06965; 2009 ABQB 452)

Indexed As: BG International Ltd. et al. v. Grynberg Production Corp. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Hawco, J.

July 24, 2009.

Summary:

The applicants sought an order finding the respondents in contempt for their ongoing refusal to heed orders of the court not to challenge, raise or pursue in court certain matters that they had agreed to pursue in arbitration. They asked the court to impose a significant fine upon the respondents and award them all the solicitor/client costs that they had incurred responding to the respondents' on-going acts of contempt.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the respondents continued to be in contempt of the court's orders. The respondents or anyone who might be affected by the present order were ordered to cease any outstanding activities (including appeals) within one week. Failure to do so would, without further application, be considered to be further contempt of the court and would result in a fine of $1 million payable forthwith together with a fine of $10,000 per day for every day that the contempt carried on. The court ordered that all of the legal costs which the applicants had incurred in both the United States and in Canada to the date of these reasons, including GST, would be paid by the respondents out of sums presently held by the applicants' law firm in relation to these proceedings. If the parties could not agree upon the exact amount of the costs, the court would decide upon the amount.

Contempt - Topic 684

What constitutes contempt - Judgments and orders - Disobedience of or non-compliance with - The applicants sought an order finding the respondents in contempt for their ongoing refusal to heed orders of the court not to challenge, raise or pursue in court certain matters that they had agreed to pursue in arbitration - They asked the court to impose a significant fine upon the respondents and award them all the solicitor/client costs that they had incurred responding to the respondents' on-going acts of contempt - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the respondents continued to be in contempt of the court's orders - The respondents or anyone who might be affected by the present order were ordered to cease any outstanding activities (including appeals) within one week - Failure to do so would, without further application, be considered to be further contempt of the court and would result in a fine of $1 million payable forthwith together with a fine of $10,000 per day for every day that the contempt carried on - The court ordered that all of the legal costs which the applicants had incurred in both the United States and in Canada to the date of these reasons, including GST, would be paid by the respondents out of sums presently held by the applicants' law firm in relation to these proceedings - If the parties could not agree upon the exact amount of the costs, the court would decide upon the amount.

Contempt - Topic 3315

Punishment - Fines - [See Contempt - Topic 684 ].

Practice - Topic 7805.1

Costs - Solicitor and his own client costs - Entitlement to - In contempt proceedings - [See Contempt - Topic 684 ].

Cases Noticed:

College of Optometrists (Ont.) v. SHS Optical Ltd. et al., [2006] O.T.C. 1199 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 32].

Counsel:

John N. Craig and George Vlavianos (Bennett Jones LLP), for the applicants;

Gerald F. Scott, Q.C. (Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP), for the respondents.

This application was heard on May 26, 2009, by Hawco, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following decision on July 24, 2009.