Introduction:
- Neville Reddy (Applicant) and Parminder Saroya (Respondent) are embroiled in a dispute where Reddy alleges that Saroya failed to properly invest millions of dollars transferred to him by Reddy for purchasing investment properties in Canada and the USA.
Key Issues:
- Civil Contempt Allegations:
- Failure to supply answers to multiple undertakings as required by various court orders, including Consent Orders and Case Management Orders from 2013 to 2022.
- Requests to impose sanctions, including striking out Saroya's pleadings and entering judgment in favor of Reddy.
Facts:
- Initial Action: Reddy filed the Statement of Claim on February 16, 2012.
- Questionings: Multiple sessions from 2013 to 2016 resulted in 482 undertakings for Saroya.
- Court Orders: Various orders from 2013 to 2022 aimed at compelling Saroya to provide answers to the undertakings.
- Responses: Saroya's responses were consistently found deficient, leading to multiple contempt applications.
Court Analysis:
- Undertaking Compliance: Detailed review of specific undertakings where Saroya's responses were found lacking. Key undertakings include requests for financial documentation and transaction details related to the investments and properties.
Legal Context:
- Alberta Rules of Court: Provisions addressing civil contempt.
- Civil Contempt Jurisprudence: Emphasis on achieving compliance with court orders and upholding court authority.
- Striking Pleadings and Judgment: Circumstances under which it is appropriate, such as persistent non-compliance with court orders.
The decision did not explicitly mention the final ruling regarding the successful party, nor did it specify the exact amount of any monetary awards, costs, or damages granted or ordered.
