The Applicant applied for an Order finding the Respondent in Contempt of an Interim Parenting Order (the “Order”). Hollins J. found the Respondent in Contempt of the Order.

Hollins J. cited Carey v Laiken, 2015 SCC 17 for the three elements for civil Contempt that must be established beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the Order alleged to have been breached must state clearly and unequivocally what should and should not be done; (2) that the party alleged to have breached the Order must have had actual knowledge of it; and (3) the party allegedly in breach must have intentionally done the act that the order prohibits or intentionally failed to do the act that the order compels done (the “Elements”).

Hollins J further commented that the Elements are codified in Rule 10.52(3), which also requires that the alleged contemptor have no reasonable excuse for the breach. That requirement has been described as reflective of the highly discretionary power of the Court to sanction a party for civil Contempt.

Hollins J. found that all the elements of civil Contempt were established. The Order granted the Applicant parenting time with both of his children over their spring break. When he went to pick them up from the Respondent’s home, the younger child did not come out. Ultimately, the Applicant did not see the younger child over the spring break period.

The Respondent had previously admitted that she was in breach of the Order. While was asked to reconsider withholding the younger child while the Court attempted to schedule the contempt hearing, she refused. As such, it was found that there had been no attempt by the Respondent to purge her Contempt. It was further found that the Respondent did not have a reasonable excuse for her breach of the Order. Hollins J. found that the Respondent was in civil Contempt for the breach of the Order.