Supreme Court of Yukon Chief Justice S.M. Duncan ordered Richard and Trevor Hunziker to serve five days for civil contempt in Whitehorse (City of) v Annie Lake Trucking Ltd, 2026 YKSC 76, decided August 21.

The partnership’s 2022 consent order ended its lease near Ear Lake, prohibited commercial gravel extraction and required removal of belongings and residents. Two contempt orders followed. Duncan found deliberate non-compliance beyond reasonable doubt. She concluded that earlier sanctions and repeated opportunities to comply had failed.

The Hunzikers sought another year and said remaining gravel had been excavated years earlier. Duncan accepted evidence of continuing commercial extraction. She credited removal work by reducing Whitehorse’s requested seven-day committal to five.

Existing fines remain: $7,500 total, divided equally among three partners, from 2022; and $7,500 per partner from 2025. Removal is due December 31, 2026. The City received special costs. Reporting for committal was set for August 28. Duncan applied the rule addressing corporate officers to partners. Reasons, paras. 1–2, 16, 19–27, 39–49.

The proof threshold

The governing distinction is between proving contempt and choosing its consequences. In Carey v. Laiken, 2015 SCC 17, the Supreme Court of Canada required proof beyond reasonable doubt of three elements: a clear order, actual knowledge of it, and an intentional act or omission that breaches it. Knowledge may be inferred or established through wilful blindness. An intention specifically to defy the court is unnecessary.

Carey also cautions against treating contempt as a routine enforcement device. Judges retain discretion, including where a person has made reasonable, good-faith efforts to comply or a contempt finding would cause injustice. The stringent proof requirement reflects the potential penal consequences. Those safeguards are important even when the underlying dispute is civil. The controlling questions concern the order’s precision, the respondent’s knowledge and conduct, and the circumstances in which judicial discretion should be exercised. Carey, paras. 32–38.

Yukon’s enforcement powers

Yukon’s Rule 59 supplies the local enforcement framework. Subrule (2) permits imprisonment, a fine or both. Subrule (3) expressly addresses corporations: sanctions may reach the corporation and individual directors or officers.

The rule also contains procedural safeguards. A contempt application must be supported by an affidavit describing the alleged conduct, and the application and supporting affidavits must be served at least seven days before the hearing. Actual notice can support a finding despite lack of service of the original order. Courts may suspend punishment on specified terms or discharge a person before a committal expires. These provisions address distinct stages of enforcement; none makes imprisonment automatic. Rule 59(2)–(3), (10)–(15).