AR v JU, 2021 ABQB 212

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: AR v JU, 2021 ABQB 212 Date: 20210322 Docket: FL01 17010 Registry: Calgary Between: AR Applicant - and - JU Respondent _______________________________________________________ Endorsement Regarding Leave to JU to Make an Application for Contempt Against AR of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ Introduction and

Summary of Disposition [ 1 ] On February 11, 2021, I issued a Decision on parenting issues between these parties ( 2021 ABQB 112 ) (Final Decision) and granted a Final Order pertinent thereto on the same day, both now under appeal.

[ 2 ] At para. 61 of that Decision, under the heading “ Further Applications to the Court”, I said, inter alia : These parents have taken up hundreds of hours of Court time over parenting disputes, and they will not again have access to this Court on parenting issues, without leave of the Court through my, or my delegate’s, order. To be clear, the following parameters apply: ...

d) Any applications for orders for contempt of existing Orders, will be considered for leave only if there is a fundamental concern for the physical and mental health of the children, and there is an adequate, appropriate and meaningful remedy for any contempt that is found – otherwise, concerns can be referred anew to CFS [emphasis added] .... [ 3 ] On March 16, 2021, JU sought my leave for an application (Application and sworn Affidavit provided) to be heard for an order finding AR in contempt of my Final Order regarding her “actions after she picked-up the Children ... on February 15, 2021.

As JU alleges, “AR’s actions were triggered, according to AR, by [the youngest child] DU losing his gloves...”. The complaint was that, contrary to para. 1(

b) of the Final Order, AR was loitering at JU’s residence and then harangued (my term)] JU at his residence door by repeatedly ringing the door bell and banging on his door and “verbally attack[ing]” JU, and further loitering near JU’s residence for approximately 30 minutes. [ 4 ] A second request for leave was for an application to order AR to “open and read emails” from JU relating to this incident and more generally. [ 5 ] Notwithstanding that no request had been made by the Court of AR to respond, and notwithstanding leave had not been granted, on March 18, 2021, AR provided the Court with an “Argument Brief” and unsworn affidavit, both of which responded to the substance of JU’s allegations, but are irrelevant to whether the leave application should be granted.

If leave were to be granted now, or in the future, a full response would be appropriate – with leave now being denied, it is not necessary at this time. [ 6 ] Leave is denied at this time, but may be the subject of a leave on a future occasion, if other matters of leave for contempt by either party are sought. [ 7 ] The reasons for this decision include: a. at no time was the physical or mental health of the Children of concern, although the continuing confrontation between the parents, renewed on this occasion, over a trivial matter, is just another of their activities that may have a long-term potential impact on the mental health of the Children; b. during the process leading up to the Final Decision, and some leave applications that were considered at the same time, the Court has been made aware of allegations relating to JU’s potential contempt for continuing to enmesh the Children in the litigation between the parents by his letter communication to the Children in December 2020 – thus, it may be argued that this application by JU for leave may be merely an offensive tactic as a part of a defence to a potential future application by AR for his contempt based on those more serious allegations – thus, I will not give leave to one allegation over such a petty matter without, potentially at some point, dealing with all contempt allegations; and c. it is not the role of the Court, nor a good use of judicial resources (that these parties continue to tax to the extreme), for the Court to be the parenting supervisor of these high conflict parents, in their regular squabbles, especially over such trivial matters as raised in this leave application, as yet another in the continuing, seemingly never ending, dispute of the parties on parenting.

Conclusion [ 8 ] Leave for JU’s March 16, 2021 application to seek to find AR in contempt of the Interim Order relating to the transfer of the Children on February 15, 2021 is denied, although the leave application may be renewed again, if other applications for contempt are sought by either party. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 22nd day of March, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: AR - Self-Represented

for the Applicant JU - Self-Represented for the Respondent