Friday, November 2, 2012
Notice of motion for contempt must be specific
Lacelle c. Miner, 2012 ONCA 740 is a source for the principle that a motion seeking a finding of contempt must be specific as to dates of the alleged contempt:
[3] De plus, l’avis de motion pour outrage n’indiquait pas les dates où il est prétendu que l’appelante n’a pas respecté l’ordonnance de la cour en refusant de permettre la visite des enfants avec le père.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Question: Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois has decided to appeal Superior Court judge decision (Nadeau-Dubois defendant, Morasse, appellant).
Nadeau-Dubois is asking the general public to help him finance his appeal. Does Morasse have to pay for his defence of a court's judgement or is the court paying to defend the judgment?
No lawyers in the household, and heated debates around the table. My guess is that the court is paying.
Post a Comment