CITATION: M.K. v. G.P., 2026 ONSC 1261

COURT FILE NO.: FS-16-0253-02

DATE: 2026-03-03

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

M.K.

Applicant

• and -

G.P.

Respondent

R. Schroeder, for the Applicant

Self-represented, for the Respondent

HEARD: February 26, 2026

Justice W.D. Newton R.S.J.

Decision On Motion

Overview

1The applicant mother¹ moves for an Order that the respondent father be found in contempt of the final parenting time order of this court dated December 12, 2025. The order was with respect to two children, a daughter aged 16+ and a son aged 13+, and provided that:

a. The mother have "virtual" parenting time with the children on Wednesday and Sunday evenings for one hour (the children reside with the father in Fort Erie);

b. The children would be in the mother's care (the mother resides in MigisiShgaigan aka Eagle Lake First Nation, near Dryden) during the summer holidays when not in school;

c. The children would be in the mother's care for the entire Christmas break for 2025 and then the Christmas holidays would be shared equally between the parents commencing 2026;

d. The children would be in the mother's care March Break of 2026 and then alternate between the parents each year thereafter; and

e. Other holidays would be divided.

2The mother has not had parenting time in accordance with the order since December 12, 2025, and, specifically, no parenting time at Christmas as the father has maintained that the children do not wish parenting time with their mother.

The Facts

3The Order made on December 12, 2025 by Brochu J., varied the Order of Shaw J. dated June 6, 2019. Although that prior order was not referenced in the material filed or uploaded to Case Centre, I surmise from other material in the court file that this Order provided for equal shared parenting with each parent having the children in their care for two weeks at a time.

Procedural History to Date

4The procedural history discerned from various endorsements includes:

a. April 19, 2022 – endorsement on contempt motion from Fregeau J. – motion brought by the mother – issue – Christmas parenting – deferred;

b. November 15, 2023 – endorsement on Case Conference from Warkentin J. – motion to change by father for sole decision making and parenting time – Office of the Children's Lawyer ("OCL") appointment sought;

c. April 16, 2024 – endorsement on Settlement Conference from Warkentin J. – discussion regarding children's wishes, OCL expressing concern "about coaching that appeared to be taking place between the children and the… father", long motion to be scheduled re parenting time (ultimately the OCL declines to become involved further as a result of complaints made by the daughter);

d. January 24, 2025 – Order from Pierce J. – without notice motion – Order that children be returned to Thunder Bay and remain in Thunder Bay until further order;

e. February 27, 2025 – endorsement from Pierce J. – contempt motion returnable in motion court – adjourned to Case Conference as father retained counsel yesterday;

f. March 28, 2025 – endorsement from Brochu J. – father has not returned with children to Thunder Bay despite the January 24, 2025 Order of Pierce J. – ongoing negotiations between parties – mother not abandoning her contempt motion – Settlement Conference to continue;

g. April 24, 2025 – endorsement from Brochu J. – Settlement Conference - "uncertainty regarding eldest child's willingness to attend Thunder Bay for parenting time" – recommended parties enroll and participate in reunification therapy;

h. August 14, 2025 – endorsement from Fregeau J. – motion adjourned to October 31, 2025;

i. October 31, 2025 – endorsement from Brochu J. – motion converted to Settlement Conference as Brochu J. had previously expressed opinion on merits – parties resolved all issues, except costs – approved draft order to be filed; and

j. December 12, 2025 – endorsement from Brochu J. – conference continued as father dd not approve draft order – issues resolved – Order to issue on consent.

The Mother's Evidence

5The mother's motion for contempt and affidavit was dated February 13, 2026. In her affidavit, the mother deposed that she began having issues with the father over the shared parenting order in 2020, stating that the father was actively trying to alienate the children and was refusing to co-operate and communicate regarding the children.

6She said that she provided the father with expanded parenting time on a temporary, without prejudice basis, but once that occurred, she lost all communication with the children and was blocked from communicating with them.

7In September 2024, the father requested that the mother allow the children to relocate with him to Fort Erie. She denied that request and asked that he facilitate contact with the children.

8In January 2025, the father relocated to Fort Erie with the children. That prompted the mother to bring the without notice motion to have the children returned to Thunder Bay discussed above. On the return date for the contempt motion, February 27, 2025, the motion was adjourned.

9Since then, the mother has had limited contact with the children.

10According to the mother, the children were required at attend reunification therapy with White Pine Wellness "which was intended to guide the future expansion of my parenting time."

11Since the final order, the mother states that the children will no longer answer her calls for virtual parenting time.

12She made travel arrangements so that the children could travel to Thunder Bay for Christmas.

13On December 20, 2025, the father emailed White Pine Wellness, with a copy to the mother, stating that the children:

adamantly refuse to go to Thunder Bay. I have agreed because I am a reasonable parent. However, [the children] are extremely uncomfortable with the idea of going to Thunder Bay for the Christmas Holidays and will not go.

14The children did not travel to Thunder Bay. On February 5, 2026, the mother was advised by White Pine Wellness that the children would no longer be attending reunification therapy sessions.

The Father's Evidence

15In his affidavit sworn February 20, 2026, the father deposes that unnamed police officers and legal counsel have advised him that the children could decide for themselves who they want to spend more time with.

16About three years ago, when the children would have been about 13 and 10, he brought a motion to change the existing parenting plan.

17He said that he requested the involvement of the OCL but said that the OCL lawyer "did not listen to [the children's] comments and complaints", and that the OCL lawyer "was of the opinion the father was coaching the children". Subsequently, the daughter posted a complaint on the OCL Lawyer's website and that ended the involvement of the OCL.

18The father stated that the mother has made it an "annual routine to force a motion for Contempt of Court" upon the father.

19With respect for relocation, the father states that the mother agreed to allow the children to move to Fort Erie. He attached as an exhibit a text in which the mother states "… if the kids wishes are to move to fort erie that is fine… but I will not be entering into any order for u having sole custody." That text is undated.

20The father repeats his assertions that the children have been told by the OCL, the police in Thunder Bay and Niagara Region, Family and Child Services, and their counsellor Ms. Carolyn Whately (of White Pine Wellness) that they are "old enough and mature enough to decide for themselves who they spend time with and who they live with."

21Attached to his affidavit was a letter from Ms. Whately, of White Pine Wellness, dated February 19, 2026, addressed to the court which stated:

I am writing this letter at the request of [the father] regarding his demonstrated support for his children, […], in relation to visitation with their mother, […].

In conversations with [the father], he confirmed his support for visitation between [the children] and their mother over the Christmas holiday in December 2025. [The children] confirmed this in the reunification therapy session on February 4, 2026. At that time, both children stated they did not want to travel to visit their mother, […], and chose not to do so.

In addition, [the father] has consistently expressed and demonstrated his support for reunification therapy between [the children] and their mother. He provided access to virtual sessions in their home between October 29, 2025, and February 4, 2026, and ensured the space was private and uninterrupted.

Based on [the father's] reports and demonstrated behaviour, limited to virtual contact between October 2025 and today's date, it is the opinion of this writer that he has consistently supported reunification and visitation between [the children] and their mother, […].

Please feel free to contact me for any clarification or further questions on this matter.

The Law

22In Moncur v. Plante, 2021 ONCA 462, at para. 10 (citations omitted), the Court set out the following general principles which govern the use of the court's power to find a party in civil contempt of court for breaching a court order:

1. For a party to be found in contempt of court for breaching a court order, three elements must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the order alleged to have been breached must state clearly and unequivocally what should and should not be done; (2) the party alleged to have breached the order must have had actual knowledge of it; and (3) the party allegedly in breach must have intentionally done the act that the order prohibits or intentionally failed to do the act that the order compels.

2. Exercising the contempt power is discretionary. Courts discourage the routine use of this power to obtain compliance with court orders. The power should be exercised cautiously and with great restraint as an enforcement tool of last rather than first resort. A judge may exercise discretion to decline to impose a contempt finding where it would work an injustice. As an alternative to making a contempt finding too readily, a judge should consider other options, such as issuing a declaration that the party breached the order or encouraging professional assistance.

3. When the issue raised on the contempt motion concerns access to children, the paramount consideration is the best interests of the children.

23In Walkington v. Caruana, 2025 ONCJ 543, at paras. 54-58, Harris J. reviewed the caselaw summarising a parent's obligations in promoting compliance with court orders regarding parenting time:

[54] In Godard v. Godard, 2015 ONCA 568, the Court of Appeal for Ontario set out what is required of a parent with respect to compliance with a parenting order. At paragraph 28, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that once the court has determined that parenting time is in the child's best interests a parent cannot leave the decision to comply with the access order up to the child.

[55] Ontario courts have held consistently that a parent "has some positive obligation to ensure a child who allegedly resists contact with the access parent complies with the access order": Godard v. Godard, 2015 ONCA 568 at paragraph 28 citing, Quaresma v. Bathurst, (2008), O.J. NO. 4734 (Ont. S.C.J.) at para.8. See also Campo v. Campo, 2015 ONSC 1349; Stuyt v. Stuyt, 2009 43948 (ON SC) and Hatcher v. Hatcher, 2009 14789 (ON SC), [2009].

[56] Case law has established the serious obligations a parent has to ensure that parenting orders are complied, as summarized below:

1. A parent has a positive obligation to ensure that a child who allegedly resists contact with the access parent complies with the access order. The parent is not entitled, in law, to leave access up to the child: McCarthy v. Murray, 2022 ONSC 855 at paragraph 30, citing Hatcher v. Hatcher, 2009 14789 (Ont. S.C.) at paras. 27-28.

2. Merely "encouraging" or abdicating decisions to the children is a breach of the order: Villeneuve v. Wilson, 2022 ONSC 2886 at paragraph 23, citing Godard v. Godard, 2015 ONCA 568, at paragraph 28.

3. It is the role of a parent to abide by court orders until such time as the orders have been terminated or varied through legal means: Cousins v. Healey, 2024 ONSC 688 at paragraph 104, citing Stuyt v. Stuyt, 2009 43948 (ON SC), 71 R.F.L (6th) 441 (ON SC), at paragraph 62

4. Abiding by court orders is not just a parent's duty to the court, but also to their children: Cousins v. Healey, 2024 ONSC 688 at paragraph 104.

5. A failure to require the child to attend parenting time is considered contempt: McCarthy v. Murray, 2022 ONSC 855 at paragraph 31, citing Sickinger v. Sickinger, 2009 28203 (Ont. S.C.) at paragraph 30, affirmed in 2009 ONCA 856.

6. Although a child's wishes should be considered by a court prior to making an parenting time order, once the court has determined that parenting time is in the child's best interests, a parent cannot leave the decision to comply with the parenting time order up to the child. A parent has a positive obligation to ensure a child who allegedly resists contact with the other parent complies with the parenting time order: McCarthy v. Murray, 2022 ONSC 855 at paragraph 33.

7. Court-ordered parenting time cannot be left up to the Child: Villeneuve v. Wilson, 2022 ONSC 2886 at paragraphs 25 and 28, citing Karar v. Abo-El Ella, 2016 ONSC 7926, at paragraph 17, Geremia v. Harb, 2006 38350 (ONSC), at paragraph 63, Quaresma v. Bathurst, [2008] O.J. No. 4734 (S.C.), at paragraph 8, B.K. v. A.P., [2005] O.J. No. 3334 (S.C.) at paragraphs 22-25, Godard v. Godard, 2015 ONCA 568, at paragraph 29.

8. What steps a parent must take to have the child attend parenting time with the other parent depends on the circumstances and age of the child. Usually, passive "reasoning with the child" is insufficient and is in breach of the access order. There is a positive obligation to ensure that a child complies with the order: Villeneuve v. Wilson, 2022 ONSC 2886 at paragraph 28.

9. A parent's positive obligations "goes beyond simply accommodating [parenting time], making the child available for parenting time and encouraging the child to comply. Rather, the parent must require that parenting time occur and actively facilitate it": Villeneuve v. Wilson, 2022 ONSC 2886 at paragraph 27 citing Jackson v. Jackson 2016 ONSC 3466.

10. Actively promoting and facilitating compliance with parenting time orders requires the parent to take concrete measures to apply normal parental authority to have the child comply, including addressing the following: (i) Did they engage in a discussion with the child to determine why the child is refusing to go? (ii) Did they communicate with the other parent or other people involved with the family about the difficulties and how to resolve them? (iii) Did they offer the child an incentive to comply with the order? (iv) Did they articulate any clear disciplinary measures should the child continue to refuse to comply with the order?: McCarthy v. Murray, 2022 ONSC 855 at paragraph 34, citing Smart v. Belland, 2021 ONSC 1124 at paragraph 10.

[57] Additionally, in Villeneuve v. Wilson, 2022 ONSC 2886, Justice Abrams held, with respect to compliance with court orders, at paragraphs 21 and 22:

[21] It is the role of a parent to abide by court orders until such time as the orders have been terminated or varied through legal means. It is also the role of parents to instill in their children a respect of the law and legal institutions. A parent who does not do so does a huge disservice to his or her child - a disservice that can have long lasting ramifications throughout a child's life": Stuyt v. Stuyt, 2009 43948 (ON SC), Aitken J., at para. 62.

[22] Misconduct by one parent toward another"when it impairs the ability of a parent to exercise access to the children, cannot help but be injurious to the long-term interests of the children." A major source of security for children in separated families derives from strong and healthy relationships with each parent. "Children's positive self-image, crucial to their ability to adjust successfully to the changes in their family, depends in large measure on the positive regard they have toward each of their parents. If their respect for either parent is diminished, their regard for themselves may also suffer": Hosein v. Dhamoon, 2017 ONSC 2482, at paras. 60, 79, & 101.

[58] A parent does not have the option of disobeying court orders that he or she does not like: Stuyt v. Stuyt, 2009 43948 (ON SC) at paragraph 62.

Analysis and Disposition

24These are difficult cases.

25I make the following observations.

26I am unable to determine if the mother initially agreed to the relocation as the text is undated. Nevertheless, she has since acquiesced to the relocation.

27The father has repeatedly asserted, contrary to law, that the children can decide and appears to have asserted that incorrect legal statement for some time and, no doubt, instilled that belief in the children.

28As noted, once a parenting order has been made, a parent has a positive obligation to ensure that a child who resists contact with the other parent complies with the parenting order.

29Despite a court order compelling the father to return the children to Thunder Bay, he has not done so. The parties instead attempted to resolve the issue through several unsuccessful conferences.

30There has never been any determination of the prior contempt motions.

31Finally, pre-Christmas 2025, the father acquiesced to the current parenting order that provided for Christmas parenting time with the mother.

32But, eight days after that order, he, in effect, nullified that order by stating that, as a reasonable parent, he has agreed with his children's wishes that they do not want parenting time with the mother.

33But for the letter from Ms. Whatley, there is nothing to support the assertion that the father has, in the last three years, taken positive steps to encourage shared parenting with the mother.

34The letter from Ms. Whatley raises some doubt about whether the father has intentionally breached the current, December 12, 2025 order. That letter suggests that since October 29, 2025, the father has taken some steps to have the children comply with the order.

35Accordingly, the motion for a finding of contempt fails and the motion is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

36To attempt to bring closure to this matter, it may be helpful if, with the consent of all parties, the counselling notes from Ms. Whatley are produced to the mother so that she can satisfy herself that the true wishes of the children are ascertained.

The Hon. Justice D. Newton R.S.J.

Footnotes

1. 1Non-specific identifiers will be used to protect the privacy of the parties and the children.