Court: New Brunswick Court of Appeal
Decision Date: January 9, 2025
Citation: 2025 NBCA 4 (CanLII)
📌 Overview
This appeal involved a contempt order issued against Mr. O.C. for failing to pay various amounts to his former spouse, J.C., following divorce-related court orders from as far back as 2009–2012. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the contempt order was improperly used to enforce the payment of money and that Rule 76 was misapplied.
⚖️ Key Legal Findings
- Contempt Remedy Improperly Applied:
The Court ruled that contempt proceedings under Rule 76 cannot be used to enforce payments of money (i.e., debt). Instead, Rule 61 provides the proper enforcement mechanism through Orders for Seizure and Sale. - Statute of Limitations:
O.C. argued the debts were statute-barred. The Court rejected this, holding that the claims were still within the 15-year limitation under the Limitation of Actions Act. - Quantification of Debt:
The Court upheld the motion judge’s assessment that $14,250.42 remained owing to J.C., based on unreimbursed expenses for mortgage payments, renovations, and debt repayments related to the marital home. - Modification of Order:
The Court struck portions of the original contempt order (specifically paragraphs 1, 5, 7–13) and converted the enforceable parts into a judgment for $14,250.42 under Rule 60. O.C. was credited for payments made since July 2023.
📝 Takeaways for Practitioners
- Contempt is not a tool for collecting money judgments.
- A clear understanding of Rule 61 and Rule 76 is essential when seeking enforcement.
- A delay in enforcement may not necessarily bar action, but parties should act within statutory limits.
📬 For more information on how this ruling may affect enforcement proceedings in family law, contact Timothy T. Culbert at Purvis Culbert Law.
