Lymer (Bankrupt), Re (2016), 616 A.R. 190; 672 W.A.C. 190 (CA)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2016] A.R. TBEd. MR.073
Neil Alan Lymer (appellant) v. Diane Jonsson, Georgina Porozni, Natalie Minckler, Keith Porozni, Michael Wygera, Willis Porozni, 1146601 Alberta Ltd., 1419253 Alberta Ltd. and 782409 Alberta Ltd. (respondents)
(1503-0159-AC; 2016 ABCA 76)
Indexed As: Lymer (Bankrupt), Re
Alberta Court of Appeal
Costigan, Paperny and Wakeling, JJ.A.
March 21, 2016.
Summary:
Both the registrar in bankruptcy and a Queen’s Bench judge on appeal concluded that the registrar had jurisdiction to find the appellant (bankrupt) in contempt for failing to comply with the registrar’s orders and impose sanctions, short of imprisonment, on him (an order of ex facie contempt). The appellant appealed.
The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Bankruptcy – Topic 6753
Practice – Jurisdiction – Registrars – [See
Contempt – Topic 5503
].
Contempt – Topic 5503
Jurisdiction to punish for contempt – Registrar in bankruptcy – Both the registrar in bankruptcy and a Queen’s Bench judge on appeal concluded that the registrar had jurisdiction to find the appellant (bankrupt) in contempt for failing to comply with the registrar’s orders and impose sanctions, short of imprisonment, on him (an order of ex facie contempt) – The appellant appealed – The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal – The court stated that “Several sections of the BIA are relevant to this interpretation question. Section 183(1)(d) vests jurisdiction in bankruptcy proceedings in the Court of Queen’s Bench. Section 2 defines ‘court’ to include ‘a registrar when exercising the powers of the court conferred on a registrar under this Act’. Sub-section 192(1) confers on registrars power and jurisdiction over a number of matters, including the power ‘to hear and determine any matter relating to practice and procedure in the courts’: s 192(1)(k). Sub-section 192(3) provides for a limit on the power of registrars, stating that ‘a registrar has no power to commit for contempt of court’. In my view, these provisions, when read in context and given their ordinary meaning within the scheme and object of the BIA, expressly confer on the registrar the power to make a finding of ex facie contempt and to impose sanctions for that contempt, short of imprisonment”.
Counsel:
S.M. Renouf, Q.C., for the appellant;
P.D. Kirwin, for the respondents.
This appeal was heard on February 2, 2016, before Costigan, Paperny and Wakeling, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following reasons for judgment reserved were delivered for the Court of Appeal by Costigan, J.A., on March 21, 2016.
