Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Angela Carbone's appeal of a chambers decision denying her stay application was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of Alberta for failing to meet any part of the three-part RJR-MacDonald test.

• Renewal of a costs judgment totalling $115,132 (inclusive of interest) was granted in favour of the respondents after the original $149,226.49 award was set to expire under the Limitations Act.

• Allegations of contemptuous conduct by the respondents — including credit bureau reporting and filing a writ of enforcement — were found unsupported by evidence attributable to the respondents or their counsel.

• The appellant's challenge to enforcement instruments filed under the respondent corporation's pre-amalgamation name was rejected under ss 186(e) and (f) of the Business Corporations Act.

• Deference was owed to the chambers judge's findings of fact on irreparable harm and balance of convenience, which the Court of Appeal found reasonable and devoid of error.

• Costs of $3,375 were awarded to the successful respondents in accordance with Column 1, Schedule C.

Background and facts of the dispute

This case stems from protracted litigation between Angela Carbone and Dr. Peter Whidden and Peter G. Whidden Professional Corporation. Carbone's original action against the respondents was ultimately dismissed, and the respondents were awarded $149,226.49 in costs in July 2014. Carbone made a partial payment of $50,000 in late 2015 to secure the removal of a writ registered against the title of her property but made no further payments toward the outstanding balance.

Renewal of the judgment

The original judgment was set to expire on July 29, 2024, pursuant to s 11 of the Limitations Act, RSA 2000, c L-12. To preserve their entitlement, the respondents applied to renew the judgment. An applications judge granted the renewal on February 10, 2025, in the amount of $115,132, which was inclusive of interest calculated up to July 28, 2024. The applications judge also awarded the respondents costs of $4,185, granted on March 7, 2025, which included throw-away costs arising from various adjournments.

The stay application and allegations of contempt

Carbone appealed both the renewed judgment and the costs orders, and simultaneously sought a stay of those orders pending her appeal. Her application expanded to include allegations that the respondents had taken "enforcement steps" both before and after the renewed judgment was issued. Specifically, she pointed to a report made to the credit bureau on or about February 1, 2025, the obtaining of a writ of enforcement on March 24, 2025, and its registration with the Personal Property Registry on April 2, 2025. Carbone argued that these steps were contemptuous of her stay application and established irreparable harm, and she sought punitive costs in the amount of $25,000. She further argued that the writ of enforcement and the Personal Property Registry report were "invalid" under ss 186(e) and (f) of the Business Corporations Act, RSA 2000, c B-9, because they had been filed under the respondent corporation's pre-amalgamation name.

The chambers decision under appeal

In a detailed written endorsement, the chambers judge dismissed the stay application. Applying the well-established three-part test from RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), the chambers judge found that Carbone had failed to establish any of the three required elements: that there was a serious issue to be tried on appeal, that she would suffer irreparable harm if the stay were not granted, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay. The chambers judge also dismissed her request for punitive costs and her arguments concerning the effect of corporate amalgamation on the enforceability of the judgment.

The Court of Appeal's analysis

The Court of Appeal found that, at their core, Carbone's submissions were an attempt to reargue her stay application in the hope of securing a different result. Citing Attila Dogan Construction and Installation Co Inc v AMEC Americas Limited, the Court reiterated that while the statement of the legal test for a stay is a question of law reviewed for correctness, findings of fact relating to irreparable harm and balance of convenience are entitled to deference, and the ultimate exercise of discretion in granting or denying a stay will not be overruled unless based on an error of principle or is unreasonable.

On the serious issue branch, the Court confirmed that the chambers judge correctly identified and applied the low threshold — whether the appeal is frivolous or vexatious. There was no merit to Carbone's argument that the chambers judge conducted an improper "in-depth merits-based" review. The preliminary assessment of the merits was appropriate, and the determination that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success was reasonable, devoid of error, and entitled to deference. On irreparable harm and balance of convenience, the Court held that deference was owed to the chambers judge's finding that Carbone had "provided no evidence" of irreparable harm and that the evidence presented did not establish any attempts at enforcement of the judgment against the appellant, nor any harm that could not later be remedied with an order directing the respondents to pay the appellant.

Regarding the corporate amalgamation argument, the Court confirmed that ss 186(e) and (f) of the Business Corporations Act preserve an amalgamated corporation's judgments both for and against it and transfer them to the amalgamated corporation. Nothing turned on the fact that the pre-amalgamation professional corporation had ceased to exist. The chambers judge further found there was no evidence that the respondents' counsel reported anything to the credit bureau. The stay application did not preclude filing a writ of enforcement, and as Justice Kendall did not order a stay, filing a writ of enforcement did not breach her order.

Ruling and outcome

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its entirety, finding no error in the chambers judge's reasoning or exercise of discretion. The respondents, Dr. Peter Whidden and Peter G. Whidden Professional Corporation, were the successful parties and were awarded costs of $3,375 in accordance with Column 1, Schedule C.