Ma v Yang, 2022 ABKB 614

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Ma v Yang, 2022 ABKB 614 Date: 20221007 Docket: 4801 174416 Registry: Calgary Between: Jinglin Yang Defendant/Applicant - and - Mingyue Ma Plaintiff/Respondent _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Justice M.H. Hollins _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The parties separated in 2015 and were divorced in 2019. Mr. Yang filed a Statement of Claim for Division of Matrimonial Property on May 12, 2021. That matter proceeded to a

summary trial before Romaine, J on August 19, 2021. Her Order of the same date included a provision directing Ms. Ma to use her “best efforts to provide Mr. Yang with any information” he requested regarding, inter alia, two investment accounts held by Ms. Ma in China. [ 2 ] On November 3, 2020, Justice Kenny made a further Order from Family Docket Court directing the parties to Resolution Counsel to follow up on the outstanding issue of the information from the Chinese investment accounts. The parties did not resolve things at that stage and in September of 2021, Mr. Yang applied to have Ms.

Ma held in contempt of court for her failure to disclose this information. [ 3 ] On September 29, 2021, Justice Johnstone made a further Order adjourning the contempt application and giving Ms. Ma another chance to provide the information by October 29, 2021. [ 4 ] That did not happen and the matter returned again to chambers on January 5, 2022 before Justice Jones. He directed Ms.

Ma to file an Affidavit explaining her inability to retrieve the information regarding the two Chinese investment accounts no later than January 12, 2022, in default of which she was required to show cause why she should not be held in contempt. That hearing – the “show

cause” hearing – came before me on February 2, 2022. [ 5 ] Ms. Ma did in fact file an Affidavit on January 12, 2022. While it is brief, it outlines her evidence regarding her attempts to retrieve this information and why it was not possible, which I would describe as a combination of COVID travel restrictions and the age of the material sought, which meant that phone numbers and passwords had become obsolete. She also says, although not directly relevant to disclosure, that their matrimonial property has already been divided. [ 6 ] At the hearing before me, Mr.

Yang repeatedly made the point that he did not believe Ms. Ma and accused her of lying. I explained that I was not able, in morning chambers with limited Affidavit material, to make those kinds of determinations. In addition, although I did not have Jones, J’s Order before me, I can see now that Ms. Ma was directed to provide her explanation and she has done so. [ 7 ] I am not suggesting that Mr. Yang must be satisfied with her explanation – indeed, I expect he is not. However, his remedy now is to ask the Court to draw an adverse inference against Ms.

Ma at trial and attribute property to her based on the information that is available and her failure to preserve and provide the disclosure which was properly sought. Again, I am not suggesting that the trial judge will necessarily make such a finding but Mr. Yang is at liberty to make that argument. [ 8 ] I apologize for my own contribution to the delay on this file, which was exacerbated by trying to recreate the litigation path for the matrimonial property action with materials that were not available to me in February, through the fault of no one. [ 9 ] Mr. Yang’s application for contempt is dismissed.

There will be no costs awarded to either party. Heard on the 2 nd day of February, 2022. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 7 th day of October, 2022. M.H. Hollins J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Jinglin Yang for himself Mingyue Ma for herself