André Bluteau

The respondent brought a motion to remove the applicant's counsel of record due to a conflict of interest.

The respondent alleged that the applicant's counsel had previously provided him with legal advice on issues currently before the court, and was now using that information against him.

The court found that the counsel was in a clear conflict of interest and ordered his removal as solicitor of record.

Costs of $1,500 plus HST were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant sought further penalties against the respondent for continued non-compliance with court-ordered access, following a prior contempt finding.

The court rejected the respondent's arguments that an appeal automatically stayed the orders or rendered the judge functus officio.

The court emphasized the respondent's obligation to comply with existing access orders, expedited the respondent's motion to vary, granted the applicant leave to amend his application for sole custody, and awarded costs to the applicant for the respondent's inappropriate conduct.

The applicant brought a motion for a finding of contempt against the respondent for repeatedly breaching an interim access order and subsequent judicial directions regarding their child.

The respondent unilaterally changed the access schedule and failed to comply with court orders, including specific directions from other judges.

The court found the respondent in contempt, emphasizing that court orders are not suggestions and unilateral changes are unacceptable.

Remedies included the continuation of the original access order, additional access for the applicant, and a suspended monetary penalty for the respondent, contingent on future compliance.

The appellant brought a motion on the day of the appeal hearing to remove counsel for the respondent from the record and to strike a paragraph from an affidavit dated January 9, 2017.

The appellant also requested an adjournment of the appeal to permit cross-examination of the respondent on his affidavit.

The court rejected the adjournment request and declined to hear the motion due to insufficient notice, having been filed on the same day as the appeal hearing.

The appeal proceeded as scheduled and the appellant's motion was dismissed with costs awarded to counsel for the respondent.

L'appelante a interjeté appel d'une décision de la Cour supérieure la déclarant coupable d'outrage au tribunal pour non-respect d'ordonnances relatives à la résidence de l'enfant.

Elle a contesté la décision en alléguant que les ordonnances avaient été obtenues par fraude et que les juges n'avaient pas compétence.

La Cour d'appel a rejeté ces arguments, confirmant que les ordonnances demeuraient en vigueur et que la peine imposée était raisonnable.

The moving party sought an order permitting her to obtain a passport for the parties’ young child and to travel with the child to Algeria without the other parent’s consent.

The responding parent opposed the travel request due to security concerns arising from Canadian travel advisories and the fact that Algeria is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The court balanced the benefits of the child maintaining contact with extended family against the risks associated with travel and the possibility of non‑return.

The court concluded that the risks outweighed the benefits for the proposed trip.

The passport request was granted, but the request to travel with the child to Algeria was denied.