The applicant sought contempt and enforcement orders against the respondent for multiple breaches of a final parenting order, including travel without consent, denial of telephone and in-person access, and involving children in parental disputes.
The respondent cross-moved to reduce the applicant's access and for other interventions, alleging the children's resistance due to the applicant's temperament.
The court found the respondent in contempt for wilfully and deliberately breaching several provisions of the order, emphasizing her failure to actively promote access and her role in sabotaging the parenting schedule.
The respondent's motion to vary was dismissed, as no material change in circumstances was found.
The court ordered the respondent to comply with the order, attend a parenting course with the applicant, and pay half the cost of a prior counselling session.