Bassett v. Magee, (2015) 377 B.C.A.C. 249 (CA)

• Judge: Donald, Saunders and Fenlon, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: August 19, 2015
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2015), 377 B.C.A.C. 249 (CA);2015 BCCA 422

Bassett v. Magee (2015), 377 B.C.A.C. 249 (CA);

    648 W.A.C. 249

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. OC.020

Dean Leigh Bassett (appellant/claimant) v. Erin Maureen Magee (respondent/respondent)

(CA42213; CA42576; 2015 BCCA 422)

Indexed As: Bassett v. Magee

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Donald, Saunders and Fenlon, JJ.A.

October 7, 2015.

Summary:

The parties were divorced. They had two young children. In this high conflict litigation, the parenting of the children was the central issue. The resolution of the issue involved determining the mother's mobility, i.e., whether the children would remain with her if she carried out her plan to move from Cranbrook to Vernon and take up residence with a new partner. The father commuted between Cranbrook and Calgary, where he was employed. He sought primary parenting of the children, and argued that the mother engaged in parental alienation. During the pre-trial phase of the dispute, the father was found to be in contempt for failing or refusing to disclose videos taken on his smart phone of the exchanges of the children for access visits.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2015] B.C.T.C. Uned. 237, awarded primary care of the children to the mother, and allowed her to move with the children to Vernon at the end of the school year, contingent on the daughter overcoming her reluctance to spend overnight visits with the father. The father appealed the contempt order, the parenting decision, and other issues.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal set aside the finding of contempt and the relocation order, but dismissed the father's claim for primary residence. The Court awarded the father his special costs on the contempt motion. No costs were awarded on the substantive appeal.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 654

Duty to court - General principles - Duty of disclosure - See paragraphs 21 to 28.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 881

Duty to court - Presentation of evidence - General - See paragraphs 21 to 28.

Contempt - Topic 4

General principles - Strictissimi juris - See paragraphs 33 to 35.

Contempt - Topic 684

What constitutes contempt - Judgments and orders - Disobedience of or non-compliance with - See paragraphs 12 to 45.

Contempt - Topic 5095

Practice - Evidence and proof - Disclosure - See paragraphs 12 to 45.

Family Law - Topic 1865

Custody and access - Duties and rights of custodian - To remove child from jurisdiction - See paragraphs 51 to 66.

Family Law - Topic 4210

Divorce - Practice - Enforcement of judgments and orders - Contempt - Procedure - See paragraphs 12 to 45.

Practice - Topic 7464

Costs - Solicitor and client costs - Entitlement to solicitor and client costs - In contempt proceedings - See paragraphs 74 to 77.

Cases Noticed:

Peel Financial Holdings Ltd. v. Western Delta Lands Partnership et al. (2003), 188 B.C.A.C. 58; 308 W.A.C. 58; 2003 BCCA 551, refd to. [para. 33].

Jackson v. Honey (2009), 267 B.C.A.C. 210; 450 W.A.C. 210; 2009 BCCA 112, refd to. [para. 33].

Glase v. Glase (2009), 274 B.C.A.C. 1; 463 W.A.C. 1; 2009 BCCA 321, refd to. [para. 34].

Larkin v. Glase - see Glase v. Glase.

Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27; 196 N.R. 321; 141 Sask.R. 241; 114 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 55].

Hickey v. Hickey, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518; 240 N.R. 312; 138 Man.R.(2d) 40; 202 W.A.C. 40, refd to. [para. 57].

Statutes Noticed:

Family Relations Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25, sect. 69 [para. 60].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canadian Judicial Council, Some Guidelines on the Use of Contempt Powers (2001), p. 11 [para. 42].

Counsel:

M.M. Ahluwalia Brar and D.E. Reimer, for the appellant;

M.A. Matthews, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on August 19, 2015, before Donald, Saunders and Fenlon, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. In reasons written by Donald, J.A., the Court delivered the following judgment, dated October 7, 2015.