If a court ordered money to be held or paid and it never arrived, can you ask the court to find the holder in contempt? In Newell v. Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company, 2026 ONCA 757, released October 27, 2026, the Court of Appeal for Ontario answered no. Rule 60.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure "is clear that a contempt order cannot be obtained in relation to the payment of money" (para. 13). The appeal was dismissed (paras. 2, 16).
The case arose from an estate administered by a trust company, so it will interest beneficiaries, estate trustees and anyone owed money under a court order.
The decision at a glance
Citation: Newell v. Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company, 2026 ONCA 757 (Court of Appeal for Ontario; Coroza, Gomery and Osborne JJ.A.). Heard October 21, 2026; released October 27, 2026.
Official text: Court of Appeal for Ontario decision
Result: appeal dismissed; the respondent awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $15,457.67, inclusive (para. 16).
What happened
Between 2006 and 2008, the appellant and his siblings litigated over competing powers of attorney for their mother. She died in April 2009, which made the main dispute moot, but the costs of those applications remained in issue (para. 3). In June 2010, the trust company was appointed, on consent, as trustee of her estate (para. 4).
On May 26, 2011, a judge decided that the appellant was entitled to $70,814.64 in costs. Because of separate litigation about competing priorities over the funds, the judge directed the trust company to hold the funds in trust pending agreement or court order (para. 5).
In 2014, on the trust company's application to pass its accounts, another judge ordered the estate residue, which included the appellant's funds, paid out in one-fifth shares to the five children. The trust company complied with that order and distributed the appellant's share, $19,732.31 (para. 7).
In 2021, the appellant learned that none of the $70,814.64 had been received from the trust company (para. 8). In April 2024, he sued the trust company for damages for contempt of court, alleging it had failed to distribute that amount in contempt of the 2011 order (para. 9). The trust company moved to dismiss, arguing abuse of process and the expiry of the limitation period (para. 10). The motion judge dismissed the action (paras. 1, 11).
Why the appeal failed
The Court quoted r. 60.11 in full. It provides that a contempt order "to enforce an order requiring a person to do an act, other than the payment of money, or to abstain from doing an act" may be obtained only on motion to a judge in the proceeding in which the order was made (para. 13).
The appellant argued that his complaint was not about "the payment of money" but about an "act to release funds by the trustee" (para. 14). The Court rejected that argument. The fundamental allegation was that the trust company failed to distribute funds, and that claim falls within the money exception. "The Rule is clear on its face" (para. 14).
That point was enough to decide the appeal (para. 15). The Court therefore did not address the appellant's argument that the wrong limitation period was applied, or the trust company's other arguments, including collateral attack and the requirement that contempt be sought in the original proceeding (para. 15).
The Court also dealt with two side arguments in a footnote. It gave no effect to the appellant's claim that court staff had told him to start a new action, because there was no evidence of it in the record. And it found that his claim, read plainly, was for contempt and did not include a claim for breach of trust; that argument was raised for the first time on appeal and had no merit (fn. 1).
What changed, and what didn't
The decision applies the plain words of r. 60.11 (paras. 13-14). It does not change the rule. It is a clear reminder that relabelling a failure to pay as a failure to "release funds" does not take a claim outside the money exception (para. 14).
It is just as important to note what the Court did not decide. It did not rule on which limitation period applied, and it did not decide the trust company's other arguments (para. 15). It also did not decide whether the appellant had any other claim. It held only that the claim he pleaded was for contempt, not breach of trust (fn. 1).
Who this affects
Beneficiaries and family members owed money from an estate under a court order (paras. 5, 7).
Estate trustees and trust companies holding funds in trust pending a court order (paras. 5-7).
Anyone considering contempt to enforce an order to pay money (paras. 13-14).
Practical takeaways
Contempt is not a collection tool for money orders. Rule 60.11 excludes orders for "the payment of money" (para. 13).
Plead the claim you actually have. The Court read the statement of claim as contempt only and would not consider a breach-of-trust theory raised for the first time on appeal (fn. 1).
Don't wait. The appellant learned of the shortfall in 2021 and sued in April 2024 (paras. 8-9). The Court did not decide the limitation issue, but delay gave the trust company a limitation argument to make (paras. 10, 15).
Watch for later orders. A 2014 passing-of-accounts order directed how the estate residue was paid out (para. 7).
Frequently asked questions
Can I use contempt to make someone pay money a court ordered?
Not under r. 60.11. The Court said the rule "is clear that a contempt order cannot be obtained in relation to the payment of money" (para. 13).
Is a failure to "release funds" different from a failure to pay?
Not in this case. The Court held that an allegation that the trustee failed to distribute funds falls within the payment-of-money exception (para. 14).
Did the Court decide the limitation period issue?
No. The money exception disposed of the appeal, so the Court did not address the limitation argument or the trust company's other arguments (para. 15). For a related limitation rule, see our post on the two-year limitation for claims against an estate (Thiessen, 2026 ONCA 730).
Could the claim have been treated as breach of trust?
The Court found that the statement of claim, read plainly, was a claim for contempt and did not include breach of trust, and it rejected that argument as raised for the first time on appeal (fn. 1).
Owed money from an estate? Book a consultation
Francis Mehr LLP handles estate administration and civil litigation for clients in Ottawa and across Ontario. Book a consultation with the lawyers at Francis Mehr LLP: call (613) 226-1011 or contact us.
Written by the lawyers of Francis Mehr LLP. Published November 3, 2026; reflects the decision released October 27, 2026. This post is general information, not legal advice.
