Ingrid van Weert

A father appealed an order denying him leave to bring a motion to change a custody and access order.

The lower court had imposed a leave requirement after the father defaulted on procedural requirements.

The Court of Appeal found that the case management judge erred in denying leave after the father cured his default, particularly where the temporary order had effectively become final without a determination on the merits.

The court noted that custody and access orders require participation of both parties and consideration of the child's best interests.

The appeal was allowed and the matter was returned for a motion to change before a different judge.

The appellant, Jamshad Khan, appealed a decision denying him leave to commence a Motion to Change custody and support orders.

The lower court had previously made final orders due to the appellant's default in filing required documents and paying costs, and had imposed a leave requirement for any future Motion to Change.

The appellant argued that the original orders were erroneous and that payment of outstanding costs should reinstate his pleadings.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's arguments constituted a collateral attack on unappealed final orders and that he failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances required for a Motion to Change.

The court affirmed that the payment of costs alone does not establish a material change.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order requiring the respondent to participate in arbitration pursuant to a mediation–arbitration agreement addressing parenting access issues concerning the parties’ child.

The respondent sought to strike or stay the motion on the basis that the applicant was in substantial arrears of child support under a prior Georgia judgment and had failed to comply with other obligations under that order.

The court held that the mediation–arbitration agreement constituted a binding contract entered into with independent legal advice and that the parties were required to comply with its terms.

The alleged breaches of the Georgia judgment were properly addressed in separate proceedings under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act and did not justify refusing enforcement of the arbitration agreement.

The respondent’s motion to strike or stay was dismissed and the applicant’s motion compelling arbitration was granted.