Morris v. Harvey

Morris v. Harvey

On the totality of the evidence the court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent knowingly and intentionally breached clear, unambiguous court orders by refusing to make the children available and interfering with contact; child protection found insufficient evidence of risk; the respondent failed to notify the applicant about counselling as required; accordingly contempt was established and the court imposed a monetary penalty and specific enforcement orders including revised parenting time and a positive duty on the father to transport the child and to disclose counsellor information.

Citation
2013 NSSC 176
Parties
Applicant (mother): Raven Morris; Respondent (father): Jason Harvey
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Family Law Contempt and Access Enforcement / Final Decision (contempt Hearing and Penalty Stage)
Outcome
Contempt proven against the respondent; penalty and enforcement orders issued
Legal Topics
Access/parenting Time, Contempt of Court, Court Ordered Counselling, Child Welfare Investigation, Enforcement and Penalties
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Protection Civil Contempt Custody and Access Enforcement Access/parenting Time Contempt of Court Court Ordered Counselling Child Welfare Investigation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raven Morris

Applicant (mother)

Jason Harvey

Respondent (father)

Procedural Posture

Family Law Contempt and Access Enforcement / Final Decision (contempt Hearing and Penalty Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent intentionally and wilfully breached clear court orders by denying parenting time to the applicant
  2. 2 Whether the terms of the order were clear and the respondent had notice
  3. 3 Whether the respondent complied with court-ordered counselling notice requirements

Ratio Decidendi

On the totality of the evidence the court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent knowingly and intentionally breached clear, unambiguous court orders by refusing to make the children available and interfering with contact; child protection found insufficient evidence of risk; the respondent failed to notify the applicant about counselling as required; accordingly contempt was established and the court imposed a monetary penalty and specific enforcement orders including revised parenting time and a positive duty on the father to transport the child and to disclose counsellor information.

Court Disposition

Contempt proven against the respondent; penalty and enforcement orders issued

Orders

  • Respondent found in contempt and fined $1,000 to be applied against child support arrears, any balance to be paid to the applicant
  • Parenting time modified: mother entitled to each Wednesday 4:30 pm–7:30 pm and alternate weekends from Saturday at noon to Sunday 7:30 pm and other agreed access