David Ian Kilgour

The applicant father initiated an urgent motion for access to his son after the respondent mother unilaterally relocated with the child without disclosing her whereabouts.

The court granted the father temporary supervised access, rejecting the mother's assertion of no access.

Given concerns regarding both parents' capacity, the Office of the Children’s Lawyer was ordered to intervene.

The court awarded the father fixed costs for an earlier appearance, finding the mother's conduct unjustified.

A trial concerning custody, access, and child support for Eden Jade Oliveira-Blackett, born July 6, 2016.

The applicant mother sought sole custody with detailed access restrictions based on the respondent father's work and volunteer coaching schedule.

The respondent sought joint custody with primary residence to the mother.

The court found that sole custody with the applicant was in the child's best interests, citing the respondent's poor communication, inability to cooperate on significant parenting decisions (particularly regarding the child's baptism and medical care), and his pattern of prioritizing his own interests over the child's welfare.

The court imputed income to the respondent and ordered child support and section 7 expense sharing.

This decision concerns the sentencing of the respondent, Brian Earl Blatherwick, for civil contempt of court.

He was found in contempt for deliberately and flagrantly breaching two terms of a prior judgment: failing to cash in a life insurance policy and pay the value to the applicant, and transferring control of a business.

Despite having 50 days to purge his contempt, the respondent failed to do so.

The court considered mitigating and aggravating factors, emphasizing deterrence and denunciation due to the respondent's extensive history of ignoring court orders, lying, and financial non-disclosure.

The court imposed a sentence of 180 days incarceration without electronic monitoring and awarded the applicant full indemnity costs of $30,000, finding the respondent's actions to be in bad faith with intent to inflict financial harm and deceive the court.

The applicant brought a motion seeking a declaration that the respondent was in contempt of a prior judgment.

The respondent was alleged to have failed to cash in a Mauritius Orangefield Insurance Policy and pay the proceeds to the applicant, and to have transferred control of Seasons Limited - Macau Commercial Offshore, both in breach of the judgment.

The court found the respondent in contempt for wilfully and deliberately breaching both orders, rejecting his arguments regarding impossibility of performance and lack of active participation in the transfer.

The penalty phase was adjourned to allow the respondent an opportunity to purge his contempt.

The respondent, Bissonnette, brought a motion to change a final order to rescind child support arrears.

The court conducted a trial of the issue, considering whether denial of access, delay in enforcement, misrepresentation of arrears, or the child no longer being dependent should preclude enforcement.

The court found no deliberate denial of access by the applicant, no acquiescence in non-payment, and that Bissonnette's delay in seeking relief was unreasonable.

The court declined to preclude enforcement of arrears, deferring the issue of the child's lack of need and hardship to the paying party for a future trial or settlement.