Antoine Merizzi

The respondent sought a stay of the applicant's court proceeding, arguing that an Interim Parenting Agreement constituted a binding arbitration agreement requiring disputes to be resolved through mediation/arbitration.

The applicant contended the agreement did not bar her from court.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion for a stay, holding that the Interim Parenting Agreement did not comply with the mandatory formal requirements for family arbitration agreements under the Arbitration Act and its Regulation, and that such terms could not be implied.

The applicant, Madeleine Robert, as testamentary trustee for the Estate of Stella Barbeau, sought full indemnity costs following a motion for directions resolved by consent order.

She argued the motion was necessitated by the unreasonable position of respondents Jean Barbeau and André Barbeau, and the unreasonable delay by Richard Séguin.

The court, applying principles from the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found that Jean and André Barbeau were the losing parties due to their abandoned position on property title.

Richard Séguin was found to have acted unreasonably by delaying his response and requiring a motion for validated service.

The court rejected the applicant's claim for full indemnity costs, noting the offer to settle did not trigger Rule 49 consequences and that the estate's approach to the motion and costs was aggressive.

The court also criticized the applicant's refusal to provide account statements.

Costs were fixed at 80% of the substantial indemnity scale for Jean and André Barbeau, and a fixed amount for Richard Séguin, after reductions for work done prior to the motion and non-motion related disbursements.

Following a motion for contempt relating to denial of parenting access, the court determined the appropriate costs award under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The moving party obtained a finding of contempt for failure to comply with an access order for a limited period after a child protection investigation concluded, while the responding party successfully defended other contempt allegations relating to access denied during the investigation and missed telephone access.

The court found success on the motion to be divided and the matter to be of average complexity.

However, the respondent’s failure to comply with the court order without seeking a variation justified a costs consequence.

The respondent was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs to the moving party.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the applicant mother for denying court‑ordered access and failing to provide telephone access at the exact times specified in a prior order.

The mother argued that she followed a written directive from a child protection agency instructing her to suspend contact during an investigation and that deviations from telephone access occurred due to the child’s baseball schedule while alternate times were offered.

The court applied the civil contempt test requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt of deliberate and wilful breach of a clear order.

The court dismissed the contempt allegations related to denial of access during the investigation and telephone access scheduling, finding the conduct was not deliberate.

However, the court found the mother technically in contempt for gradually restoring access after the investigation concluded rather than immediately complying with the order, but held she had purged the contempt by subsequently complying for several months.