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.