Court of Appeal for Ontario
Thorburn, Madsen and Rahman JJ.A.
Between
James William Scot Thomson
Applicant (Appellant)
and
Jill Anne Fleming
Respondent (Respondent)
Counsel:
Shawn M. Philbert, for the appellant
Jill Anne Fleming, acting in person
Heard and rendered orally: June 10, 2026
On appeal from the order of Justice Michael P.D. Derstine of the Superior Court of Justice, dated August 22, 2025.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1The appellant, James William Scot Thomson, appeals a motion judge’s order waiving his participation in the parties’ 13-year-old child’s passport application as well as his consent to her travel.
2The appellant argues that the motion judge did not have jurisdiction to make this order because the parties have retained a parenting coordinator with arbitral authority over these issues and the respondent, Jill Anne Fleming, was not enforcing an arbitration award. He seeks an order that the issues regarding the child’s passport and travel be remitted to the parenting coordinator in accordance with the parties’ Parenting Coordination Agreement entered into in May 2024, in conjunction with a final consent order. This appeal is without merit.
3On May 18, 2025, the parenting coordinator made an award in which she ordered the appellant to “take all steps necessary to obtain [the child’s] passport and confirm to the [parenting coordinator] that this has been resolved.”
4The respondent’s motion, brought on notice before the Superior Court of Justice in August of 2025 was an enforcement motion in which the respondent sought an order that she be permitted to have the child’s passport issued without further participation from the appellant and an order permitting her to travel with the child without his consent. The motion judge accepted the respondent’s evidence that the appellant had been obstructing the application for the child’s passport and that the child, an accomplished athlete, requires the passport for international sport-related travel. It is clear that, in his view, the ancillary relief of dispensing with the appellant’s consent to travel was also required.
5The motion judge appropriately exercised his authority to make an enforcement order, as permitted by r. 32.1(2) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99.
I. Disposition
6The appeal is dismissed.
7The respondent is entitled to her costs of this appeal, fixed at $2,500, all inclusive. The cost order made below in the amount of $3,500 remains unpaid and owing.
“Thorburn J.A.”
“L. Madsen J.A.”
“M. Rahman J.A.”