The respondent brought a motion for contempt of court against the applicant, alleging breaches of a consent order dated September 17, 2012.
The applicant opposed the contempt motion and brought a cross-motion to strike portions of the respondent's materials.
The court struck two of three paragraphs of the contempt motion as improper and struck portions of the applicant's affidavit containing inadmissible evidence.
The contempt motion proceeded only regarding an alleged breach of paragraph 3 of the order.
The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the order ambiguous regarding the interaction between paragraphs 3 and 4.
However, the court found the respondent's conduct unreasonable in that he engaged in the same behavior he had criticized the applicant for—discussing major parenting changes with the child without consulting the other parent.
Consequently, despite being the successful party, the respondent was denied costs.
