Dawn Marie Bennett

The respondent brought a motion for contempt against the applicant for refusing to share transportation for access visits as required by an order dated July 18, 2013.

The applicant brought a cross-motion to strike paragraph 12 of that order, claiming it had been included by mistake.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the applicant had not wilfully disobeyed a court order, and granted the motion to strike the transportation provision.

The court also addressed a subsequent motion regarding the applicant's travel to Florida for American Thanksgiving, and considered whether costs should be awarded against respondent's counsel personally for failing to appear at the November 13 hearing.

This is a child protection status review proceeding under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

Two motions were heard: one by the maternal grandmother seeking to be added as a party to present an alternative placement plan for the children, and one by the father seeking to add the paternal grandparents as parties.

The children had been in the father's care subject to supervision orders since May 2011.

The court dismissed both motions but granted the paternal grandparents limited participation rights under subsection 39(3) of the Act as essential caregivers who had cared for the children continuously for the preceding six months.