Digest: Keyes v Keyes, 2018 SKQB 191

• Date: June 18, 2019

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 191

Docket Number: DIV 283/14 JCR , QB17576

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2019-06-18

Judges:

• McIntyre

Subjects:

• Civil Procedure � Contempt

Digest: The petitioner and respondent entered into minutes of settlement in January 2016 regarding the division of their matrimonial property. Both parties were represented by experienced counsel. The petitioner filed an application for a judgment of divorce shortly thereafter with a copy of the minutes appended to his affidavit. A consent judgment and consent order were executed. Under the agreement the respondent was to transfer her interest in property that the parties owned in Mexico to the petitioner. The lawyer in Mexico who was responsible for the transfer advised the respondent�s counsel that since she would not be in Mexico to effect the transaction, a power of attorney must be given to the petitioner to enable the transaction to proceed. The respondent objected to executing the power of attorney because she did not want to give the petitioner an opportunity to defraud her of other property. A chambers judge suggested that the parties consider an amended order identifying the exact documents that the respondent was to sign and the lawyer in Mexico supplied them. The amended version of the order was filed by the petitioner and the chambers judge indicated that the order would have to be by consent or on notice. The respondent replied in her affidavit that she was not prepared to provide the petitioner with a power of attorney. The petitioner then applied for the respondent to be found in contempt of the court�s amended judgement as a result of her failure to transfer her interest in the Mexican property.
HELD: The respondent was found to be in contempt. However, the court granted her the opportunity to purge her contempt by signing the identified documents and delivering them to the petitioner within six weeks of the date of the judgment.

Rules Considered:

• QB Rule 11-26
• QB Rule 11-27

Cases Considered:

• Apotex Inc. v Merck & Co. Inc., 2003 FCA 234, 227 DLR (4th) 106
• Bhatnager v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 2 SCR 217, 111 NR 185, 71 DLR (4th) 84, 44 Admin LR 1, 43 CPC (2d) 213, 12 Imm LR (2d) 81
• Chiang (Trustee of) v Chiang (2007), 85 OR (3d) 425
• Kopaniak v...