George A. Kirkham

The applicant sought costs for a previous motion.

The court awarded the applicant $2,500, less than the $3,300 requested, noting the applicant's partial success and lack of serious settlement effort.

The respondent's position on access was deemed "ridiculous" making settlement unlikely.

The court declined to make the costs enforceable as child support, as the motion did not pertain to child support.

The applicant mother brought a motion for a temporary order changing the terms of access for the parties' four-year-old son pending trial.

The court found that the respondent father had used the existing access order to extend conflict, including improperly keeping the child over Serbian Orthodox Christmas in 2018 and keeping the child out of school during mid-week access.

To minimize conflict, the court temporarily cancelled the father's mid-week access, granted the mother access for Serbian Orthodox Christmas in 2019, and permitted the mother to cancel one weekend access to take the child on a March break vacation.

The applicant mother brought a motion for a declaration that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had jurisdiction over all matrimonial issues, including custody, support, and property division.

The respondent father argued that a New Orleans court had already assumed jurisdiction over the divorce and ancillary matters, excluding custody.

The court found it had jurisdiction simpliciter due to the mother and child's habitual residence in Ontario.

However, applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the court stayed all claims except custody and access to avoid conflicting judgments with the New Orleans court.

The respondent father brought a contempt motion alleging the mother breached an access order by denying him parenting time during a scheduled weekend.

The mother had arranged for the children to attend a dance recital that conflicted with the father’s access and proposed alternative arrangements, including switching weekends or transporting the children to the recital herself.

The court reviewed the test for civil contempt and emphasized that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal and require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court held the orders created potential conflict between the father’s access rights and the mother’s authority to arrange the children’s activities, and that the mother acted reasonably in attempting to accommodate both interests.

The moving party failed to establish deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order.