Gabrielle Marie Suzie Beaulieu

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 father brought a motion seeking an order that the parties’ child attend a homogeneous French-language Catholic elementary school, while the mother sought enrollment in an English-language public school with a French immersion program.

The court applied the best interests test under s. 24(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

Although the child was bilingual and the father emphasized cultural and linguistic benefits of French-language schooling, the court placed significant weight on the mother’s inability to communicate in French, assist with homework, or participate meaningfully in school activities.

The court also considered transportation difficulties and the lack of religious practice in either household despite the proposed Catholic school.

The court concluded that enrollment in a public school French immersion program better served the child’s best interests.