COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Goudge, Cronk and Armstrong JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Gerald Fraser
Applicant (Appellant)
and
Tracey Logan
Respondent (Respondent)
Gerald Fraser, appearing in person
Cheryl Lean, for the respondent
Dan Goldberg, for the children
Heard: February 7, 2013
On appeal from the order of Justice J.M Johnston of the Superior Court of Justice, dated July 11, 2012.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
1In our view, there is no error in the motion judge’s dismissal of the appellant’s contempt motion. The judge properly dealt with the critical incidents specified by the appellant and there were grounds for his dismissal of the application.
2Nor do we see any error in the access order. The children are almost 17 and 14 respectively. Their best interests require that their wishes be given very significant weight. Indeed before us the appellant appears to acknowledge this.
3His real complaint before us appears to be that the respondent is not actively encouraging more access. We agree with the motion judge that it is in the best interests of both boys that they continue to have a meaningful relationship with their father. The mother should not impede this and indeed should encourage it. But in the end the motion judge was in our view correct, that the best interests of the children are best served by the access order he made that respects their views.
4Nothing in the fresh evidence persuades us otherwise.
5As to child support, the appellant has demonstrated no error in the motion judge’s disposition. There is no basis for us to interfere with it.
6The appeal must be dismissed. In our view, this is not a case for costs. None are ordered.
