|
Presentation - Duties to Presenters (2). Carter v. Carter
In Carter v. Carter (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a family law appeal, here brought against "orders for equalization, child and spousal support, and ancillary matters related to enforcement. The appellant was also found in contempt." resulting in a sentence of 90 days incarceration.
Here the court considers a judge's duties to unrepresented parties:[55] I am not persuaded that the trial judge failed to provide the appellant, as an unrepresented person, with adequate assistance to ensure that the contempt allegation was fairly tried and that he had a full opportunity to defend himself: see R. v. Bancroft, 2024 ONCA 121, at para. 8. There is no checklist of obligations that apply in all cases. The applicable standard is reasonableness: R. v. Richards, 2017 ONCA 424, 385 C.R.R. (2d) 1, at para. 111. The trial judge was well-situated to assess the appellant’s comprehension and determine the material matters that required explanation in the circumstances of the case. Contrary to the appellant’s written submissions, for example, the trial judge did not have to advise the appellant that contempt was a quasi-criminal matter and that a finding of contempt might result in his incarceration, because, as everyone understood, the appellant knew this possibility from having previously been incarcerated for civil contempt. I am not persuaded that the contempt hearing was unfair or could reasonably appear to be unfair because of the level of assistance the trial judge provided.
|
