Stowe-Wall v. Wall

Stowe-Wall v. Wall

Transcript review demonstrated the appellant lacked a fair opportunity to meet the contempt case; accordingly the contempt conviction was set aside. The prohibition against bringing further applications was vacated because it improperly fettered the case management judge's discretion. No new hearing was ordered because the appellant had already served the seven-day sentence.

Citation
2000 BCCA 424
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Blair Avis Stowe-Wall (also known as Blair Avis Wall); Defendant (appellant): Steven Kay Wall
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceedings (family Law/support) / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Chambers Judge Orders (contempt)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: contempt conviction set aside; prohibition order vacated; appeal as to alleged April 12 no-access order quashed for lack of any such order; no new contempt hearing ordered.
Legal Topics
Support Orders, Household Expenses, Contempt of Court, Access/no Access Orders, Case Management, Costs
Source Language
English
Family Law Civil Contempt Civil Procedure Support Orders Household Expenses Contempt of Court Access/no Access Orders Case Management +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blair Avis Stowe-Wall (also known as Blair Avis Wall)

Plaintiff (respondent)

Steven Kay Wall

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Contempt Proceedings (family Law/support) / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Chambers Judge Orders (contempt)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the finding of civil contempt for breach of payment orders was valid
  2. 2 Whether the prohibition preventing the defendant from bringing applications was proper
  3. 3 Whether an alleged no-access order of April 12, 2000 existed

Ratio Decidendi

Transcript review demonstrated the appellant lacked a fair opportunity to meet the contempt case; accordingly the contempt conviction was set aside. The prohibition against bringing further applications was vacated because it improperly fettered the case management judge's discretion. No new hearing was ordered because the appellant had already served the seven-day sentence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: contempt conviction set aside; prohibition order vacated; appeal as to alleged April 12 no-access order quashed for lack of any such order; no new contempt hearing ordered.

Orders

  • Set aside the Chambers judge's March 21, 1999 contempt conviction
  • Vacate the March 20, 1999 prohibition preventing the defendant from bringing applications regarding the marriage or children