Appeared as counsel in 2 cases (2016–2016)
3 total
Mother sentenced to three days in jail for contempt after refusing to remove TikTok posts about child protection proceedings.
The applicant children's aid society sought a penalty after the respondent mother was found in contempt for posting information about child protection proceedings on TikTok, breaching a court order.
The respondent refused to purge her contempt, claiming freedom of speech and civil rights, and stated she would not obey the court order even if jailed.
The court applied the Cassidy factors for contempt sentencing in family law.
Finding that the respondent flaunted her disregard for the law and that no less restrictive option was available, the court sentenced her to three days of imprisonment.
The court granted the biological father's motion for temporary care of his Indigenous child, prioritizing cultural connection.
The father (K.C-P.) brought a motion to change the child's placement from temporary joint care with non-biological paternal grandparents (the S's) to his sole care, supported by the paternal grandmother.
The court considered the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) and the federal An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families (FNIM Act), emphasizing the priority of placement with an Indigenous parent for an Indigenous child.
Despite the S's providing good care, the court found it was in the child's best interests, particularly given her Indigenous heritage, to be placed with her father, with a transitional period.
The motion was granted, and the S's request for costs was denied.
Summary judgment granted placing child in father's custody; unsworn participant expert reports ruled admissible.
The Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order placing the child in the deemed custody of the respondent father, with parenting time for the respondent mother.
The mother opposed the motion, seeking the child's return to her care, and objected to the admissibility of unsworn reports from the child's treating psychologist.
The court held that the psychologist was a participant expert whose unsworn reports were admissible on a summary judgment motion.
Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted the motion, placing the child in the father's custody with decision-making responsibility, and ordered parenting time for the mother.
