COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
GHASSAN SLEIMAN (Appellant) v. MADELEINE SLEIMAN (Respondent)
BEFORE:
McMURTRY C.J.O., LASKIN and CHARRON JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
L. Levencrown
for the appellant
W.O. Murphy
for the respondent
HEARD:
May 7, 2002
On appeal from the order of Justice M. Métivier dated June 14, 2001.
E N D O R S E M E N T
Released Orally: May 7, 2002
1[1] In our view the motions judge’s finding that the appellant had a “blatant disregard for the process and the orders of the court” is fully justified by the record. The main way in which the appellant has failed to comply with court orders has been his refusal to make financial disclosure. We are therefore satisfied that the motions judge correctly precluded the appellant from contesting the respondent’s financial claims.
2[2] The appellant, nonetheless, insists he should be entitled to pursue his claim for custody or for access. His current claim for custody is unrealistic. The child is now nearly nine-years-old. The respondent has had custody since separation and the appellant has not even seen the child for almost five years. Still we think that the appellant should be able to maintain a claim for access and to assert that claim in the divorce proceedings. We therefore modify the motion judge’s order to permit the appellant to maintain his answer to the counter petition but only on the question of access. Apart from this modification, the appeal is dismissed, with costs to the respondent fixed at $5,000.
“R. McMurtry C.J.O.”
“John Laskin J.A.”
“Louise Charron J.A.”
