For executors, trustees, and estate administrators, a recent decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court serves as a useful reminder: court orders in estate matters are not suggestions.

In Bringeland Estate (Re), 2026 BCSC 356, the Court addressed a former executor’s failure to comply with orders requiring her to deliver estate assets and records and to pass her accounts. The result was a finding of civil contempt, fines totalling $10,000 (with further fines contingent on continued non-compliance), and an order for special costs.

Background

A deceased’s will divided his estate equally between his two children. One child, Dawne Bringeland, was appointed executor. Years later, the other child, Hal Bringeland, successfully applied to have her removed and replaced her as executor.

Following her removal, the Court ordered Ms. Bringeland to:

• deliver all estate assets and records to Mr. Bringeland; and
• apply to pass her accounts.

Ms. Bringeland did not comply with those orders.

Approximately a year later, Mr. Bringeland brought a contempt application. That application was unsuccessful — not because there had been compliance, but because the earlier order did not specify a deadline. The Court nevertheless found Ms. Bringeland to be in breach and issued new orders with clear timelines and directions for compliance.

Several months passed. Ms. Bringeland still did not comply. A second contempt application was brought. She did not attend the hearing.

Civil Contempt Orders

The purpose behind contempt orders is to uphold the authority of courts. Where a person does not comply with court orders, a civil contempt order may be considered. Consequences can be significant; a finding of contempt may result in committal and/or fines to ensure compliance.

The power of a court to make a civil contempt order is discretionary. It is considered to be an ‘extraordinary order’ that should only be used ‘cautiously and with great restraint.’ Even where the elements of contempt are established, a court may still decline to make an order.

The governing test was set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Carey v. Laiken, and requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that:

• the court order in issue was clear and unequivocal;
• the party had actual knowledge of it; and
• the party intentionally failed to comply.

Application

The Court in Bringeland found that each of the required elements for civil contempt were met for the orders made after the first contempt application. The Court concluded that it should exercise its discretion to make a civil contempt order and impose fines to “maintain and foster respect for the role and authority of courts,” and enforce the court’s orders in the face of Ms. Bringeland’s continued and deliberate non-compliance.

The resulting orders included:

• A declaration that Ms. Bringeland was in contempt of court;
• A $10,000 fine, pursuant to Rule 22-8 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, payable to the Province within 14 days as a penalty for being in contempt of court;
• That the contempt of court could be purged by providing the required documents within 30 days, failing which an additional $5,000 fine would follow;
• That the contempt of court could be purged by applying to pass accounts within 30 days, failing which an additional $5,000 fine would follow; and
• special costs payable.

Bringeland makes clear that while contempt is an extraordinary remedy, it may become necessary where other measures have failed to secure compliance.

Key Takeaways

• Court orders must be complied with. Estate administrators who are ordered to deliver records or pass accounts are not at liberty to delay or ignore those obligations.
• If an order is disputed, the appropriate course is to appeal or seek to vary it — not to disregard it.
• For those seeking enforcement, the decision illustrates both the challenges and the potential path forward when dealing with sustained non-compliance.