Dickie v. Dickie,

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.
• Citation: (2007), 221 O.A.C. 394 (SCC),2007 SCC 8,279 DLR (4th) 625,JE 2007-362,357 NR 196,221 OAC 394,39 RFL (6th) 30,[2007] SCJ No 8 (QL),72 WCB (2d) 23,153 ACWS (3d) 851,[2007] 1 SCR 346
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Date: 17 January 2007

Dickie v. Dickie (2007), 221 O.A.C. 394 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2007] O.A.C. TBEd. FE.075

Leaka Helena Delia Dickie (appellant) v. Kenneth Earle Dickie (respondent) and Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (intervenor)

(31350; 2007 SCC 8; 2007 CSC 8)

Indexed As: Dickie v. Dickie

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.

February 9, 2007.

Summary:

The parties divorced in 1994. A separation agreement provided for payment of child and spousal support. By interim judgment in 2001, Kiteley, J., increased child support and ordered further spousal support. In 2002, the husband moved to the Bahamas and did not comply with Kiteley, J.'s order. Greer, J., ordered that the husband, within 14 days of the date of the order, provide an irrevocable letter of credit in favour of the wife in the amount of $150,000 to secure his child and spousal support obligations pursuant to Kiteley, J.'s order. Greer, J., also ordered that the husband provide the wife with security for costs by paying the sum of $100,000 within 14 days of the date of the order, which sum was to be held in an interest-bearing account by the wife's solicitors pending further order. Greer, J., further ordered the husband to comply with Kiteley, J.'s order. Costs were awarded against the husband in the amount of $1,000. The husband did not comply with Greer, J.'s order. The wife moved to have the husband found in contempt.

The Ontario Superior Court allowed the motion, held the husband in contempt and sentenced him to 45 days in prison. The husband appealed. The wife brought a preliminary motion, arguing that the court should not hear the husband's appeal because of his wilful disregard for orders of the court.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Laskin, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported at 206 O.A.C. 257, dismissed the motion. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders finding the husband in contempt and imposing a penalty for contempt. The wife appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal.

Banks and Banking - Topic 4504

Letters of credit - General - Letter of credit defined - [See first Contempt - Topic 6 ].

Contempt - Topic 6

General - Power of courts - The parties divorced in 1994 - By interim judgment in 2001, Kiteley, J., varied child and spousal support - In 2002, the husband moved to the Bahamas and did not comply with Kiteley, J.'s order - Greer, J., ordered, inter alia, that the husband provide a letter of credit in favour of the wife to secure his child and spousal support obligations - The husband did not comply - The wife moved to have the husband found in contempt - The motions judge allowed the motion, held the husband in contempt and sentenced him to 45 days in prison - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the husband's appeal - Pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 60.11(1), a court was precluded from making a contempt order to enforce an order requiring a person to make a "payment of money" - The court affirmed that a "letter of credit" was "identical to cash to its full face value at the moment that it is given" - Accordingly, a letter of credit constituted an order for the "payment of money" within the meaning of rule 60.11(1) - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed an appeal - A letter of credit was not an order for the "payment of money" within the meaning of rule 60.11(1).

Contempt - Topic 6

General - Power of courts - The parties divorced in 1994 - By interim judgment in 2001, Kiteley, J., varied child and spousal support - In 2002, the husband moved to the Bahamas and did not comply with Kiteley, J.'s order - Greer, J., ordered, inter alia, that the husband provide the wife with security for costs to be held in an interest-bearing account by the wife's solicitors - The husband did not comply - The wife moved to have the husband found in contempt - The motions judge allowed the motion, held the husband in contempt and sentenced him to 45 days in prison - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the husband's appeal - Pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 60.11(1), a court was precluded from making a contempt order to enforce an order requiring a person to make a "payment of money"- The husband was ordered to pay the security for costs not into court but to the wife's solicitors - The purpose of the order (to provide security for costs) and the fact that the money was to be held in an interest-bearing account did not change the fact that it was an order that the husband pay a sum of money to another person - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed an appeal - An order for security for costs was not an order for "payment of money" within the meaning of rule 60.11(1).

Contempt - Topic 10

General - Scope of contempt power - [See both Contempt - Topic 6 ].

Contempt - Topic 2806

Bars - Enforcement of payment of money - [See both Contempt - Topic 6 ].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.), rule 60.11 [para. 1 et seq.].

Counsel:

Harold Niman, David Stratas and Daryl L. Gelgoot, for the appellant;

Rochelle F. Cantor and Marie-France Major, for the respondent;

E. Llana Nakonechny and Gillian Calder, for the intervener.

Solicitors of Record:

Niman, Zemans, Gelgoot, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Rochelle F. Cantor, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent;

Women's Legal Education & Action Fund, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener.

This appeal was heard on January 17, 2007, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following judgment of the court was delivered in both official languages on February 9, 2007.