The applicant brought a contempt motion alleging the respondent breached an access order by failing to facilitate the children’s counselling and access visits.
The court found the respondent deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the order and held her in contempt, emphasizing that a primary residential parent must actively facilitate court‑ordered access.
On a second motion concerning parenting arrangements, the court considered allegations of parental alienation and the best interests of the children under the Divorce Act.
The court ordered joint interim custody and significantly increased the father’s parenting time with one child through a week‑on, week‑off schedule, while maintaining the existing access framework for the other child with some modifications.
Interim child support was ordered to continue.
