The Decision captured the verbal reasons of Eamon J. The dispute involved the parents of two children and had a long procedural history. The Decision analyzed whether the Defendant was in Contempt of Court for violating an Interim Parenting Order (the Order). The Order directed that the children be immediately transferred to the primary care of the Plaintiff and for the Defendant’s parenting time to end. However, the Defendant breached the Order by planning, helping to execute, or concealing the disappearance of the children on March 12, 2021, either alone or in concert with others.

The Court set out that Civil Contempt is governed by Rule 10.52 and that the standard of proof is high. The Court cited Envacon Inc v 829693 Alberta Ltd, 2018 ABCA 313 for the test for Civil Contempt: the Claimant must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the order clearly and unequivocally states what should and should not be done, the respondent had actual knowledge of the order (the Court may infer knowledge and willful blindness suffices), the respondent intentionally did the prohibited act or failed to do the compelled act, and there is an absence of reasonable excuse. Contempt of Court is a last resort, rather than a first resort, especially in family law proceedings where the administration of justice and the best interests of the children must be protected.

Justice Eamon noted that in the family law context, the Court must consider discretionary factors before finding contempt, including the best interests of the children, a paramount consideration, and alternatives to a contempt finding. Eamon J. noted that the failure to pay money is not contempt, per Rule 10.52, despite allegations by the Plaintiff that the Defendant’s contempt included the failure to pay amounts owing to him.

The Court found that the Defendant was in Civil Contempt. The Defendant had admitted as much through her counsel. Justice Eamon was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant had actual awareness of the substance of the Order, as she was present when it was pronounced. Eamon J. was also satisfied that the directions of the Order were clear and unequivocal that the children would transition to the Plaintiff’s care immediately. The Court found that the Defendant joined in on the ongoing scheme to conceal the children. It was unclear whether she planned the scheme or not; however, the Court found beyond a reasonable doubt that she breached the Order by intentionally failing to disclose the whereabouts of the children. Eamon J. found that there was no reasonable excuse for this breach and that there was no reasonable alternative to a finding of contempt. The Court found that the Defendant’s actions were contrary to the children’s best interests, which required that the Court find contempt.

The Court noted that the law requires the Defendant the opportunity to purge the contempt, and that it would hear submissions on sanctions.