David Ian Kilgour

The applicant father sought custody of his young daughter after the respondent mother engaged in a severe pattern of parental alienation, false allegations of abuse, and the fabrication of electronic evidence.

During the four-week trial, the mother produced forged documents, including an altered paternity test and fake emails, before fleeing to India with her younger child.

The court granted sole custody to the father, finding him to be a capable and loving parent, while condemning the mother's extreme misconduct and misuse of electronic evidence.

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.

The applicant brought a motion to find the respondent in contempt for failing to comply with previous court orders requiring financial disclosure in the context of the respondent's motion to change child support.

The court found that the respondent deliberately breached the disclosure orders, causing unnecessary delay and expense.

Rather than striking the respondent's pleadings, the court ordered him to pay a penalty of $24,900, representing $100 per day of non-compliance, failing which the applicant could return her motion to strike his pleadings.

The applicant brought an ex parte motion to enforce a family law judgment, seeking to pierce the corporate veil of an offshore company, issue garnishments, and obtain a vesting order for the respondent's shares.

The court granted leave to proceed ex parte due to the respondent's history of contempt and asset depletion.

However, the court adjourned the requests to pierce the corporate veil and issue garnishments to allow notice to affected third parties.

The court dismissed the request for a vesting order, finding it was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction under the Family Law Act, Family Law Rules, or Rules of Civil Procedure to grant new substantive relief after the final judgment had been entered.

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.

The appellant pleaded guilty to sexual interference involving his granddaughter and subsequently appealed to withdraw his plea.

He argued that he did not understand that his plea constituted an admission of touching for a 'sexual purpose'.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant met the onus of demonstrating his plea was not informed, as the proceedings and counsel's submissions focused on 'inappropriate' touching without acknowledging a sexual purpose.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.