Emma M. Dupuis

The court found the applicant, Samantha Paige Mayer Graham, in contempt of two court orders regarding parenting time and directed the urgent appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The decision details a pattern of non-compliance by the applicant, including failure to facilitate telephone and in-person parenting time for the respondent, Nathan Jacob Desgagne, and addresses the best interests of the children, the adequacy of remedies, and the appropriateness of a contempt finding as a last resort.

Faycal Saffih brought a motion for a panel review to set aside an order by a single judge of the Court of Appeal that refused to extend time for him to perfect an appeal and denied a stay.

The underlying appeal was from a Superior Court judgment concerning spousal and child support and property transfer.

The panel reviewed the motion judge's discretionary decision, applying the standard of review for s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The panel found no error in principle or unreasonable result, concluding that the motion judge was entitled to find the appeal lacked merit and that further delay would cause prejudice.

Consequently, the motion for panel review was dismissed.

The Applicant, Valoris for Children and Adults of Prescott-Russell, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order for extended society care for the child B.J.M.O., who had previously been found in need of protection.

The respondent parents opposed, arguing for a trial on disposition and access, proposing custody to kin or interim supervision.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial.

It ordered extended society care for the child, with access to parents at the Society's discretion (due to criminal no-contact conditions and a broken relationship) and sibling access as determined by the Society.

The decision emphasized the child's best interests, stability, and the unsuitability of other options.

K.R. appealed an order finding her in contempt of court for allegedly violating a temporary order concerning supervised visits for her child with the father.

The original order granted Valoris discretion to remove supervision if no longer necessary.

K.R. refused to allow visits at the father's home, insisting they remain at Valoris's office due to concerns about the child's behaviour.

The Court of Appeal found the original order insufficiently clear regarding visit location or K.R.'s obligation to support a gradual transition plan.

It also noted that Valoris had not yet made a final decision to remove supervision.

The court emphasized the need for clear orders in contempt proceedings and the importance of considering the child's best interests and less severe remedies in family law disputes.

The appeal was allowed, the contempt order quashed, and the contempt motion dismissed.