This was an Application by a father to hold a mother in Contempt of Court for non-compliance with parenting Orders, and to vary the existing parenting Order for their child as a result of the mother’s non-compliance and parental alienation of the child. The mother's non-compliance included not facilitating parenting time and not sharing essential information about the child.

With respect to the father’s allegation of Civil Contempt, the Court considered Rule 10.52, which governs declarations of civil Contempt. Under Rule 10.52(3), the Plaintiff had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt all the essential elements of Contempt, including: (1) the Order’s terms must be clear and unambiguous; (2) the breaching party must have had proper notice and actual knowledge of the Order; (3) the breaching party must have intentionally violated the Order; and (4) there must be no reasonable excuse for the breach.

Applying the factors, the Court found that the mother knowingly and intentionally breached the existing Court Order, which governed parenting arrangements, without reasonable excuse. While some of the mother’s actions were not covered by the Order and reflected poor parenting, they did not amount to Contempt. However, her conduct in insisting on supervised parenting time, blocking the father's communications, and withholding information about the child, directly violated the Order. The Court rejected the mother's claims that she acted in the child's best interest or that the father’s behavior justified her actions.

The Court concluded that the mother was in Contempt of Court, and a sanction proceeding was to be scheduled to determine the consequences. Sentencing for the mother's Contempt was adjourned for six months to allow her an opportunity to purge her Contempt.