Brown v. Bezanson,

• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Judge: Ryan-Froslie, J.
• Neutral Citation: 2002 SKQB 148
• Citation: 2002 SKQB 148,(2002), 218 Sask.R. 56 (FD),27 RFL (5th) 1,[2002] SJ No 183 (QL),218 Sask R 56,(2002), 218 SaskR 56 (FD),218 Sask.R. 56,218 SaskR 56,[2002] S.J. No 183 (QL)
• Date: 12 April 2002
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)

Brown v. Bezanson (2002), 218 Sask.R. 56 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] Sask.R. TBEd. AP.029

Willard Glenn Brown (petitioner) v. Crystal Lynn Bezanson (formerly Johnson) (respondent)

(2001 F.L.D. No. 8; 2002 SKQB 148)

Indexed As: Brown v. Bezanson

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Ryan-Froslie, J.

April 12, 2002.

Summary:

Parents of three children divorced. The father applied to vary custody and access and for a finding that the mother was in contempt of two court orders. The mother applied to transfer the father's application to Nova Scotia.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, transferred the application to Nova Scotia.

Contempt - Topic 6

General - General principles - Power of courts - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, stated that "In a civil contempt proceeding the following elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. The terms of the order must be clear and unambiguous; 2. Proper notice must be given to the contemner of the terms of the order; 3. Clear proof must exist that the terms of the order have been broken by the contemner. 4. The appropriate mens rea must be present. ... Every superior court of record has attached to its jurisdiction an inherent power to punish for contempt. Because civil contempt is a quasi-criminal proceeding the rules of natural justice dictate the contemner be given a fair opportunity to answer the allegations." - See paragraphs 14, 16 and 17.

Contempt - Topic 41

General - Elements of contempt - General - [See Contempt - Topic 6 ].

Contempt - Topic 505

What constitutes contempt - General principles - Civil contempt - [See Contempt - Topic 6 ].

Contempt - Topic 5082

Practice - Evidence and proof - Standard of proof - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, stated that "The burden of proof in contempt applications is beyond a reasonable doubt and rests with the party alleging the contempt." - See paragraph 13.

Contempt - Topic 5083

Practice - Evidence and proof - Burden of proof - [See Contempt - Topic 5082 ].

Family Law - Topic 2122

Custody and access - Jurisdiction - Where custody or access order made in another jurisdiction or under Divorce Act - A Nova Scotia court granted the parties a divorce and corollary relief respecting custody, access and child support - The father moved to Saskatchewan and applied there to vary access - A Saskatchewan court made three orders, one of which required a custody and access assessment - As a result of the assessment, the father amended his variation application to request custody - He also applied for a finding that the mother was in contempt of two of the Saskatchewan orders - The mother applied to transfer the father's application to Nova Scotia - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, allowed the mother's application - The children were most substantially connected to Nova Scotia - The transfer enabled the Nova Scotia court to deal with the contempt application respecting the Saskatchewan orders as well.

Family Law - Topic 2129

Custody and access - Jurisdiction - Transfer to jurisdiction of substantial connection - [See Family Law - Topic 2122 ].

Family Law - Topic 2175

Custody and access - Enforcement of orders - Contempt proceedings - [See Family Law - Topic 2122 ].

Family Law - Topic 2175

Custody and access - Enforcement of orders - Contempt proceedings - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, stated that "A finding of contempt in family law matters should only be made as a last resort but it will be made where the evidence supports such a finding." - See paragraph 15.

Cases Noticed:

Rempel v. Reynolds (1991), 94 Sask.R. 299; 34 R.F.L.(3d) 82 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

Turnbull v. Turnbull (1989), 80 Sask.R. 277 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

Sawler v. Sawler, [1988] N.W.T.J. No. 75 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

Stupple v. Quinn (1990), 30 R.F.L.(3d) 197 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Kloczko v. Kloczko (1991), 36 R.F.L.(3d) 424 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 15].

McMillan v. McMillan (1999), 95 O.T.C. 276; 47 R.F.L.(4th) 173 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 15].

Harrison v. Harrison (1986), 1 R.F.L.(3d) 461 (Man. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 15].

Cillis v. Cillis (1980), 20 R.F.L.(2d) 208 (Ont. H.C.), affd. (1981), 23 R.F.L.(2d) 76 (Ont. Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

White v. White (1999), 179 N.S.R.(2d) 397; 553 A.P.R. 397 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Counsel:

T.M. Paulson, for the petitioner;

M. Millet, for the respondent.

This application was heard by Ryan-Froslie, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following fiat on April 12, 2002.