Emma M. Dupuis

In a child protection proceeding, the biological father brought a motion seeking interim care and custody of his young child, who has significant medical needs.

The child had been residing with a kin caregiver since being removed from the mother's care.

The court applied the two-part test under section 94 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and found that the child could not be safely returned to the mother.

In assessing the competing placement plans, the court considered the father's pending criminal charges and the child's need for stability.

The court ordered that the child remain in the care of the kin caregiver, with the father granted one overnight visit per week.

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 mother sought orders regarding parenting time and decision-making for the parties' two children.

The respondent father engaged in a prolonged campaign of coercive control, domestic violence, and false reporting to child protection agencies.

The court found the father's behaviour caused significant emotional harm and instability for the children.

Applying the best interests of the child test under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court suspended the father's parenting time until he demonstrates a material change in circumstances through trauma counselling and a mental health assessment.

The court also issued a one-year restraining order against the father and awarded costs to the mother.

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.

The respondent moving party sought summary judgment to dismiss the applicant estate's family law application for equalization.

The deceased spouse had instructed counsel to commence an equalization claim before his death, but no application was filed.

The court held that under the Family Law Act, the right to claim equalization is personal between spouses, and an estate cannot initiate a new claim for equalization after a spouse's death.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the estate's application was dismissed.

The respondent father brought a motion for contempt against the applicant mother, alleging she breached two final orders regarding joint decision-making and alternating weekly parenting time.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the decision-making order, finding it was not clear and unequivocal.

Regarding the parenting time order, the court found the mother deliberately and wilfully breached the order by failing to take concrete steps to require the 14-year-old child to visit his father.

However, the court declined to exercise its discretion to find her in contempt, noting the father had alternate adequate remedies available and a contempt finding would not advance the child's best interests.

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.

The applicant child protection agency brought a motion for contempt against the respondent mother for refusing to comply with a temporary order granting the father supervised access that could transition to unsupervised access at the agency's discretion.

The mother refused to allow visits at the father's home despite investigations into abuse allegations being closed without charges.

The court found the mother in contempt, as the order was clear, her disobedience was deliberate, and the contempt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court also modified the prior order to implement a gradual schedule for unsupervised access at the father's home.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion for the immediate return of the parties' nine-year-old daughter to Ottawa to resume in-person access.

The mother had previously relocated the child to Tiny Township without consent and, in breach of a prior court order, failed to return the child, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as justification.

The court found the mother in breach of the prior order and rejected her attempt to use the public health emergency as an excuse to unilaterally relocate.

The motion was granted, and the mother was ordered to return the child to Ottawa with police enforcement.