Gabrielle Beaulieu

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.

A custody dispute between separated parents concerning their young child following an interim order that placed the child primarily with the father pending trial.

The mother sought restoration of the previous arrangement under which the child primarily resided with her, relying in part on a social worker’s recommendation.

The court rejected the recommendation after finding it based on an inaccurate understanding of the parties’ historical caregiving roles and for failing to address the impact of reversing the existing arrangement.

Applying the best interests test under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court emphasized the child’s stability, successful adjustment in the father’s community, and concerns about the mother’s earlier relocation conduct.

The court concluded that maintaining the existing residence with the father while preserving generous access to the mother best served the child’s interests.

The moving party brought a motion to change a prior family law order regarding child support.

She argued that the adult child’s return to studies and the parenting time arrangements for the other child constituted a material change in circumstances justifying increased support.

The court held that the adult child was no longer entitled to support because he was not enrolled in full‑time studies and had reached the age of majority.

Regarding the other child, the court found the evidence supported shared parenting rather than the alleged reduced time with the responding party, and the moving party failed to prove a material change in circumstances.

The motion to vary the support order was therefore unsuccessful.