Pintea v. Johns

2017 SCC 23 [2017] 1 SCR 470 Court SCC Decision date 2017-04-18 Heard 2017-04-18 Docket 37109 English

PartiesDale Johns Respondents·Dylan Johns Respondents

Counsel (5)

Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, Calgary.
Solicitors for the respondents: Gowling WLG (Canada), Calgary.
Solicitors for the intervener the National Self-Represented Litigants Project: Bennett Jones, Toronto.
Solicitors for the interveners Pro Bono Ontario and Access Pro Bono: Torys, Toronto.

Judges McLachlin, Beverley; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Wagner, Richard; Gascon, Clément; Côté, Suzanne; Brown, Russell; Rowe, Malcolm

Delivered by Karakatsanis J. (McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Wagner, Gascon, Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ. concurring)

On appeal from Alberta

Contents

Reasons for Judgment — Karakatsanis J. (McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Wagner, Gascon, Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ. concurring)

Karakatsanis J. — The common law of civil contempt requires that the respondents prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Pintea had actual knowledge of the Orders for the case management meetings he failed to attend.

The case management judge failed to consider whether Mr. Pintea had actual knowledge of two of the three Orders upon which she based her decision. The respondents concede that the requirements of Rule 10.52(3)(a)(iii) of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta. Reg. 124/2010, were not met with respect to these two Orders.

As a result, the finding of contempt cannot stand.

We would add that we endorse the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006) (online) established by the Canadian Judicial Council.

The appeal is allowed, the action is restored and the costs award vacated.