DeMong v. DeMong, 2011 ABQB 179

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: DeMong v. DeMong, 2011 ABQB 179 Date: 20110317 Docket: 4803 130578 Registry: Edmonton Between: Brenda Lee DeMong Applicant - and - Mark Henry DeMong Respondent _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Madam Justice J.B. Veit _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On March 16, 2011, I declared Mr. DeMong in civil contempt of court for his failure, without reasonable excuse, to comply with orders of the court, dated February 7 and February 22, 2011, requiring him to make financial disclosure to Ms.

DeMong. In particular, Mr. DeMong has not provided a sworn, itemized list, in the form provided, of his income, assets and liabilities. Mr. DeMong has not provided filed personal income tax returns for the three most recent taxation years; he wrongly believes that he has fulfilled his obligation with respect to item 1 of the standard Notice to Disclose by providing copies of T4, T4A and all other relevant tax slips for previous years. He is wrong.

What the Notice to Disclose requires is that he actually file income tax returns for all but the previous taxation year; it is only for the immediately preceding taxation year that he is entitled to provide tax slips and statements. In addition to his failure to provide the necessary tax information, Mr. DeMong has not provided copies of the most recent statements for all RRSPs and other investments in his name or in which he has an interest. Although he has provided statements for one bank account, he has not provided cancelled cheques for that account.

[ 2 ] Mr. DeMong has provided some of the required information. He has provided credit card statements and, by implication, has stated that those are the only credit cards he now has even though he had at least one other credit card while the parties were living together. By implication as well, he has told Ms. DeMong that he receives no income from employment insurance, disability payments, dividends or any other sources. [ 3 ] Ms.

DeMong’s application for disclosure requested only the standard contempt remedies: disclosure by a specific date; imputation of income to the respondent; award of indemnifying costs; order for disclosure against another person. Ms. DeMong, who is self-represented, did not ask for any of the penalties or sanctions set out in Rule 10.53, such as imprisonment, fine, or the striking out of a document or a proceeding. A court cannot give a litigant remedies other than those requested; indeed, Ms. DeMong has stated that all she really wants from Mr. DeMong is full financial disclosure. [ 4 ] Ms.

DeMong has not yet cited Mr. DeMong in contempt for his failure to comply with the order of this court, dated January 4, 2011, requiring him to transfer the parties’ RESP to Ms. DeMong. I assume that Ms. DeMong has, however, served RBC Dominion Securities, Lloydminster with a copy of the January 4 th order. [ 5 ] This court has already imputed income to Mr. DeMong and used that income as the basis for a child support order. [ 6 ] What Ms. DeMong wants, and needs, is financial disclosure so that she can decide whether the imputed income fairly represents Mr.

DeMong’s earning capacity; if it does not, she has been advised that she can apply for a variation of the order imputing income. I will therefore require that Mr. DeMong mail by ordinary mail to Ms.

DeMong at her address for service: - his sworn statement of income, assets and liabilities by Friday, March 18, 2011; - copies of the most recent statements from his investments by Friday, April 15, 2011;. - copies of the cancelled cheques on both his chequing accounts and savings accounts by Friday, April 15, 2011; - copies of his filed personal income tax returns for the years 2008 and 2009 by Friday, May 20, 2011. [ 7 ] Although the last of this disclosure will therefore be made after the special chambers hearing set for April 29, 2011 at 2 p.m., all financial disclosure made prior to April 29, 2011 may be referred to at the April 29 th hearing. [ 8 ] Ms.

DeMong is entitled to costs for each of her 5 court appearances in 2011 to date. She has represented herself on each of those occasions; therefore, rather than a total of $2,500.00 which would have been awarded if a lawyer had represented her, and in the absence of any information from Ms. DeMong about the cost to her of these various court appearances, the court awards her a total of $2,000.00 in costs for the appearances on January 4, January 11, February 7, February 22, and March 16, 2011. This is not a punitive order of costs, but merely a standard order of costs. Heard on the 16 th day of March, 2011.

Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 17 th day of March, 2011. “J.B. Veit”

J.B. Veit J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Brenda Lee DeMong on her own behalf Mark Henry DeMong on his own behalf