Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Mr. Dempsey repeatedly failed to attend court-ordered discovery examinations in aid of execution, resulting in findings of civil contempt in Nova Scotia.

• The enforceability in Nova Scotia of British Columbia cost orders, recognized under the Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act, was a central issue.

• His stay and injunction motions were dismissed as he failed to demonstrate an arguable issue, irreparable harm, or clean hands.

• The recusal motion against Van den Eynden J.A. was dismissed as baseless, lacking any serious grounds to suggest bias.

• Security for costs was ordered in two appeals due to Mr. Dempsey’s history of insolvent conduct and failure to comply with court orders.

• Claims of necessity and allegations of conspiracies, including assertions of cognitive tampering, were rejected as unfounded and irrelevant.

Facts of the case

Mr. Nathan Kirk Dempsey engaged in prolonged litigation against Pagefreezer Software Inc. and Michael Riedijk. This originated in British Columbia, where the Supreme Court of British Columbia issued a Contempt Costs Order of $41,271.53 and a Special Costs Order of $295,581.11 against Mr. Dempsey. These orders were recognized as Nova Scotia judgments on April 17, 2023, and December 14, 2023, respectively, under the Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act. Pagefreezer obtained execution orders in Nova Scotia to pursue enforcement of these cost awards.

Mr. Dempsey was served with multiple subpoenas to attend discovery in aid of execution but failed to appear. This led to findings of civil contempt by the Nova Scotia Supreme Court. In July 2024, Justice Norton imposed a 30-day custodial sentence for contempt, which Mr. Dempsey served after refusing to purge his contempt by attending discovery. In April 2025, Justice Smith again found him in contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena and scheduled a penalty hearing.

Outcome of the decisions

In 2025 NSCA 32, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal ordered Mr. Dempsey to post $8,000 security for costs in each of two appeals (CA 540475 and CA 542305). These appeals challenged, respectively, a confidentiality order and a contempt finding. The Court found that Mr. Dempsey had acted in an insolvent manner, failed to comply with multiple court orders, and that there was a significant risk the respondents would not recover costs if his appeals failed. The order included an automatic dismissal provision if security was not posted within 10 clear business days from May 8, 2025.

In 2025 NSCA 36, Mr. Dempsey’s motion seeking the recusal of Van den Eynden J.A. was dismissed. The Court found no evidence of bias, reasonable apprehension of bias, or serious grounds to support his claims. Mr. Dempsey’s allegations included assertions of judicial collusion in a “post-democratic institutional framework” and claims of cognitive tampering through COVID-19 vaccination, all of which were deemed absurd and without merit.

In 2025 NSCA 40, Mr. Dempsey’s motion for a stay of the contempt penalty hearing and for injunctive relief was dismissed. The Court concluded that he failed to raise an arguable issue on appeal, did not demonstrate irreparable harm, and came before the Court without clean hands due to his repeated defiance of court orders. The Court also held it lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested injunction as it was a remedy of first instance.

Throughout the proceedings, Mr. Dempsey’s claims of necessity and his conspiracy allegations were consistently rejected as irrelevant and unfounded by the courts.