CITATION: C.D. v. J.A., 2026 ONSC 4735
COURT FILE NO.: FC-16-1014-2
DATE: 2026/08/14
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
C.D.
Applicant
– and –
J.A.
Respondent
Self-Represented Applicant
Mary Cybulski, for the Respondent
HEARD: May 26, 2026
JENSEN, J.
I. Overview
[1] This case illustrates a difficult reality of high-conflict parenting litigation. Court orders can regulate conduct, allocate responsibilities, and establish parenting schedules, but they cannot compel trust, repair damaged relationships, or shield a child from the effects of years of parental conflict. The parties have been litigating issues concerning their daughter, B.D., for much of her life. Numerous orders have been made respecting decision-making, parenting time, communication, and information-sharing. Despite those efforts, the conflict has persisted.
[2] B.D. is no longer the young child who was the subject of many of those earlier orders. She is now an adolescent with her own views, experiences, and understanding of the conflict that has surrounded her. As children mature, their voices often become increasingly important in determining what arrangements serve their best interests. In this case, the most significant evidence did not come from the parties' competing affidavits or their extensive history of litigation. Rather, it came from B.D. herself. Her views and experiences provided essential context for understanding the issues the court is now required to decide.
[3] The motions before me raise five principal issues. The applicant father seeks a finding that the respondent mother is in contempt of court. The respondent mother seeks a finding that the applicant father is in contempt. She also seeks an order declaring the applicant a vexatious litigant, a restraining order, and a variation of the existing parenting provisions to better reflect B.D.'s current circumstances and wishes.
[4] During the hearing, I asked the parties whether it would be helpful for me to conduct a judicial interview with B.D. Both parties agreed that such an interview would assist the court in determining her wishes and preferences respecting parenting time and in understanding the impact that the ongoing conflict has had upon her. The father specifically agreed that B.D.'s views would be relevant to the issues of parenting time and contempt.
[5] Following the interview, I provided the parties with a detailed written endorsement summarizing the information obtained. The interview itself was recorded. However, to protect B.D.'s privacy, I sealed the recording. The endorsement therefore constitutes the official record of the interview and is discussed below. The parties were given an opportunity to make submissions on the implications of the views expressed by B.D. to me in the judicial interview. The information obtained through that process provided important insight into B.D.'s current circumstances, her relationships with each of her parents, and the reasons underlying her wishes and preferences.
[6] Ultimately, although the motions before me concern contempt, parenting time, litigation conduct, and future access to the court, they all converge on a single question: what orders are required to best protect B.D.'s well-being and promote her long-term interests? It is through that lens, and with careful consideration of B.D.'s own voice, that the issues before the court must be determined.
II. The Child’s Views and Preferences
[7] As noted above, the parties agreed that it would be helpful for me to conduct a judicial interview with B.D. to better understand her wishes and preferences with respect to parenting time and to gain insight into how the ongoing conflict between her parents has affected her.
[8] B.D. presented as intelligent, articulate, thoughtful and emotionally aware. She understood the purpose of the interview and understood that she was not being asked to choose between her parents. She recognized that parenting decisions are made by the court and that I was speaking with her to better understand her experiences and feelings. She also indicated that no one had told her what to say and no one had instructed her to say anything untruthful.
[9] Throughout the interview, B.D. spoke openly and comfortably. She demonstrated a remarkable ability to reflect on her own feelings and to explain them. Her answers were clear and balanced. She did not express hostility toward either parent. To the contrary, she repeatedly acknowledged that her father loves her and stated that she loves him. She also identified several positive experiences she has enjoyed with him in the past, including activities in British Columbia.
[10] Importantly, B.D. was equally clear that she does not view herself as being required to choose between her parents. She stated that the problem, from her perspective, is not that she prefers one parent over the other. Rather, she feels significant pressure surrounding her relationship with her father. She described feeling overwhelmed by his efforts to communicate with her and by what she perceives as attempts to persuade her to spend time with him. She explained that she sometimes blocks his communications when she becomes overwhelmed and then unblocks them when she feels able to engage. She views this as a way of controlling the amount of contact with her father and reducing her stress.
[11] B.D. expressed a clear desire to retain control over communications and contact with her father. She stated that she would like to continue messaging him when she chooses to do so. At present, however, she does not wish to participate in telephone or video calls and does not wish to engage in in-person parenting time. She explained that she remains upset about recent interactions with her father and that she does not presently feel comfortable spending time with him. At the same time, she acknowledged that her feelings may change in the future and indicated that she remains open to the possibility of rebuilding the relationship.
[12] B.D. also spoke positively about her life with her mother and stepmother. She described her home environment, her school routine, her friends, her interests, and the strategies she uses to regulate herself when she is anxious or upset. She reported that her mother encourages her to speak with her father and to spend time with him. She specifically stated that her decisions not to participate in calls and not to see her father were her own decisions and were not the result of pressure from her mother or her mother’s wife.
[13] The applicant maintains that B.D.'s resistance to contact is the product of the respondent's influence and a long-standing effort to interfere with his relationship with their daughter. I do not accept that submission. B.D. presented as entirely capable of explaining her own reasoning. Her explanation for her reluctance to spend time with her father was internally consistent, nuanced and rooted in her own emotional experience. She did not express hatred, fear, or rejection of her father. Rather, she expressed love for him while simultaneously describing the pressure she experiences in her interactions with him. I am satisfied that the views and preferences she expressed during the interview were authentically her own and not the product of coaching or manipulation by the respondent or her partner.
[14] In my view, one of the most significant insights arising from the interview is that B.D.'s resistance to contact is not driven by a desire to sever her relationship with her father. Rather, it is driven by her desire to reduce the stress and pressure that she associates with that relationship. She wishes to maintain a connection with him, but on terms that allow her to feel safe, respected and emotionally regulated. That distinction is important and informs my analysis of each of the issues before the court.
III. The History of the Parties' Conflict
[15] The litigation history is relevant not because it is desirable to revisit old disputes, but because it provides important context for understanding B.D.'s current circumstances and the concerns she expressed during the judicial interview.
[16] A recurring theme in B.D.'s interview was her perception that interactions with her father can feel overwhelming, pressured, and difficult for her to manage. She spoke about feeling stressed by communications, wanting greater control over contact with her father, and feeling uncomfortable when she perceives pressure to interact with him. At the same time, she was equally clear that she loves her father, knows that he loves her, and remains open to having a relationship with him in the future.
[17] Previous judicial decisions reveal concerns that bear a resemblance to those expressed by B.D. While those decisions consistently recognize the father's love for B.D. and his desire to be closely involved in her life, they also identify patterns of communication, conflict, and litigation conduct that have contributed to difficulties within the family. These findings do not determine the issues presently before me. However, they form part of the factual landscape against which B.D.'s present circumstances, wishes, and preferences must be understood.
A. Preliminary Observations Regarding the Father
[18] Before reviewing the history of judicial findings concerning the parties' conflict, it is important to recognize that the courts have never questioned the father's love for B.D. or his commitment to maintaining a meaningful relationship with her.
[19] The history of this matter demonstrates a father who cares deeply about his daughter and who has made considerable efforts to remain involved in her life despite the geographical distance between them. As noted, B.D. herself was clear during the judicial interview about her relationship with her father. She recalled positive memories of time spent with him and did not express any desire to sever her relationship with him.
[20] Nor do I find that the father's litigation activity has been motivated by indifference toward his daughter. To the contrary, I accept that much of it stems from a genuine desire to be involved in her life and from a sincere belief that he is acting in her best interests.
[21] The difficulty identified repeatedly in the previous decisions, however, is that the father's efforts to advance those objectives have often had the opposite effect. Several judges have found that his communications, allegations, and litigation strategies have contributed to conflict between the parties and have interfered with the cooperative parenting relationship necessary to meet B.D.'s needs. As discussed below, this theme emerges repeatedly throughout the litigation history and remains relevant to the issues presently before the court.
B. Repetition of Allegations and Relitigation
[22] The parties have been before the court on numerous occasions since the original parenting arrangements were established.
[23] A recurring theme in the previous decisions is the father's continuing assertion that the mother has failed to communicate appropriately, has withheld information, has excluded him from decision-making, and has interfered with his relationship with B.D.
[24] These allegations have been considered repeatedly by the courts.
[25] In her 2021 decision, Justice Audet rejected many of the father's complaints and found that his attacks on the mother were not justified by the evidence. In 2024, Justice Smith observed that the allegations advanced by the father were "not new" and were "very similar in nature to those that he made in previous court appearances." He concluded that the allegations were unsubstantiated and that the father continued his "relentless attacks on the Mother, again without any justification or foundation."
[26] When the father later sought an extension of time to perfect an appeal, Justice Somji found that the proposed appeal had "little, if any, merit" and concluded that the appeal materials amounted to an attempt to relitigate issues and arguments that had already been considered and rejected.
[27] The consistency of these findings across multiple proceedings provides important context for understanding the current litigation.
C. Communication Between the Parties
[28] Communication has been one of the principal sources of conflict throughout this family's history.
[29] The previous decisions reveal a long-standing disagreement regarding the nature and extent of information to be provided by the mother to the father concerning B.D.'s education, health, activities and daily life.
[30] The father has consistently maintained that the information provided by the mother is inadequate. The mother has consistently maintained that she is overwhelmed by the volume and intensity of the father's requests.
[31] Justice Smith examined this issue in considerable detail. He found that, following earlier court orders designed to address communication difficulties, the father had shifted his focus away from direct involvement with professionals and toward increasingly frequent demands upon the mother for information. Justice Smith accepted the mother's position that regardless of the amount of information provided, it would never be sufficient to satisfy the father. He found that the father's conduct was "excessively disruptive," that his demands were "unreasonable," and that he was "always attempting to undermine the mother’s decision-making authority."
[32] Justice Smith further found that the father's communications amounted to an escalating pattern of conduct that was negatively affecting the mother and, in turn, impacting B.D. He described the father as having "a meritless need to micromanage" and found that his communication style had not improved despite previous court intervention.
[33] These findings are important because they echo concerns expressed by B.D. during the judicial interview regarding pressure, excessive communication, and difficulties establishing boundaries with her father.
D. Professional Involvement and the Child's Care
[34] Another recurring source of conflict has involved professionals providing services to B.D.
[35] As B.D.'s needs became more complex and she came to require increasing medical, educational and therapeutic supports, disputes arose regarding the recommendations made by those professionals and the appropriateness of their interventions.
[36] The record establishes that the father lodged complaints against a number of individuals involved in B.D.'s care. These included medical, psychological and speech-language professionals. Several of those complaints later resulted in proceedings before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.
[37] The issue was significant enough that, in 2023, restrictions were imposed on the father's direct contact with professionals involved in B.D.'s care. Justice Smith subsequently observed that, once those restrictions were implemented, the mother was finally able to establish a stable network of professionals for B.D. and that none of those professionals had subsequently withdrawn from providing services.
[38] Justice Smith also found that the father had a history of minimizing or challenging aspects of B.D.'s diagnoses and needs, including her ADHD diagnosis, learning difficulties, allergies and autism spectrum disorder diagnosis. He concluded that the father had demonstrated a limited willingness to accept and implement professional recommendations relating to B.D.'s needs.
E. The Expansion of Conflict Beyond the Family Court
[39] The conflict between the parties has not been confined to proceedings in the family court.
[40] The record demonstrates that complaints were made to professional regulatory bodies, that appeals were pursued before review tribunals, and that concerns were raised with other institutions involved in B.D.'s life. The respondent's affidavit also describes repeated complaints to the Children's Aid Society and communications directed toward schools and professionals involved with B.D.
[41] It is not necessary for me to determine the merits of each of those individual proceedings. What is significant is that the dispute between the parties expanded over time to involve a growing number of individuals and institutions connected to B.D.
F. The Effect of the Ongoing Litigation
[42] The litigation has now continued for many years.
[43] The evidence establishes that numerous judges have been required to address substantially the same underlying disputes concerning parenting, communication, information sharing, decision-making and the father's relationship with B.D. The mother describes significant emotional, financial and personal strain arising from the continuing litigation.
[44] Justice Somji specifically found that the continuing litigation was causing prejudice because it distracted from the mother's ability to focus on the care of a child with significant needs. She concluded that the ongoing proceedings were detrimental to finality and stability for B.D.
[45] Those observations are particularly important in light of the evidence presently before me. One of the clearest themes emerging from B.D.'s judicial interview is her desire for less pressure, less conflict, and greater control over the manner in which she engages with her father. Her views must be understood against the backdrop of a family that has been engaged in high-conflict litigation for most of her life.
IV. Findings Arising from B.D.'s Interview and the Litigation History
[46] The information obtained through the judicial interview and the extensive litigation history point to a common theme.
[47] The applicant's position throughout these proceedings has been that B.D.'s increasing reluctance to engage with him is primarily the result of the respondent's conduct. He maintains that the respondent mother has failed to facilitate the relationship and has influenced B.D. to resist contact with him.
[48] I do not accept that submission.
[49] B.D. presented as intelligent, reflective, and entirely capable of explaining her own thoughts and feelings. She understood the purpose of the interview. She was able to articulate both positive and negative aspects of her relationship with each parent. As noted, B.D. loves her father, knows that he loves her, and wishes to have a relationship with him. At the same time, she described feeling overwhelmed by the pressure she experiences in her interactions with him and expressed a strong desire to have greater control over the nature and frequency of those interactions. She was clear that right now, she does not wish to have contact with her father and that she wants her wishes to be respected.
[50] Her explanation for her reluctance to participate in calls and parenting time was nuanced, internally consistent, and rooted in her own lived experience. She did not describe being pressured by the respondent mother to avoid her father. To the contrary, she stated that her mother encourages her to communicate with him and to spend time with him.
[51] The concerns expressed by B.D. during the interview are also consistent with findings made by previous judges. Over a number of years, judges have identified patterns of conduct by the applicant that include excessive communications, unrelenting criticism of the respondent, repeated allegations that were found to be unsubstantiated, and behaviour perceived as controlling or intrusive.
[52] Having considered both B.D.'s interview, the parties’ submissions on the interview and the extensive litigation history, I reject the father's contention that B.D.'s resistance arises from alienation by the mother. I find that B.D.'s views are genuinely her own. I further find that the difficulties in the father-daughter relationship arise primarily from B.D.'s reaction to the pressure she experiences from her father, rather than from any effort by the mother to interfere with that relationship.
[53] This finding does not diminish the father's love for B.D. or his genuine desire to maintain a close relationship with her. I accept that the father deeply loves his daughter and sincerely wishes to be involved in her life. The difficulty, however, is that he has demonstrated limited insight into the extent to which his own conduct contributes to the very resistance he attributes to others. The tragic feature of this case is that many of the steps taken by the father in an effort to strengthen his relationship with B.D. have instead had the effect of placing further strain upon it.
V. The Contempt Motions
A. Applicable Principles
[54] Contempt is an extraordinary remedy. It is one of the most serious findings a court can make in civil proceedings because it carries both punitive and coercive consequences.
[55] The party alleging contempt bears the burden of proving the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt. The order said to have been breached must be clear and unequivocal. The alleged contemnor must have had actual knowledge of the order. Finally, the alleged breach must be deliberate and wilful. Contempt is not established by mere technical non-compliance, misunderstanding, poor judgment, or conduct falling short of ideal cooperation: Carey v. Laiken, 2015 SCC 17, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 79, at paras. 32-35.
[56] Even where the elements of contempt are established, the court retains a discretion whether to make a contempt finding. Contempt should be used with restraint, particularly in family proceedings where the best interests of a child remain the court's paramount concern: Carey, at paras. 36-37.​
B. The Father's Contempt Motion Against the Mother
[57] The father's contempt motion is largely premised on the assertion that the mother has deliberately interfered with his relationship with B.D. and has intentionally prevented parenting time and communication from occurring. He argues that the mother has failed to facilitate his relationship with B.D., has withheld parenting time, and has failed to comply with various provisions of the existing orders.
[58] I am not satisfied that these allegations have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
[59] A significant difficulty with the father's position is that it is inconsistent with the information provided by B.D. during the judicial interview. B.D. was clear that her reluctance to participate in calls and visits was her own. She stated repeatedly that her mother encourages her to communicate with her father and to spend time with him. She talked about the father-daughter relationship and stated that she feels considerable pressure surrounding communication and parenting time with her father. She described a desire for greater control over the manner and timing of contact and expressed the view that she is presently not comfortable participating in calls or in-person visits.
[60] I accept B.D.'s account. As discussed earlier in these reasons, I found her to be intelligent, thoughtful, reflective, and capable of expressing independent views. I reject the suggestion that her views are the product of coaching or improper influence by the mother or her wife. Rather, as noted above, I find that they are genuinely her own.
[61] The father points to four separate parenting-time incidents as examples of contempt. I have reviewed the evidence concerning each of those events carefully. The evidence surrounding them is highly disputed and, in several respects, incomplete. More importantly, the evidence does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that any missed parenting time resulted from a deliberate and wilful decision by the mother to ignore or frustrate a court order. Rather, the evidence demonstrates a progressively deteriorating parenting situation in which B.D.'s views, preferences, emotional needs, and increasing resistance to parenting time became significant factors.
[62] The March 2024 incident arose shortly after Justice Smith's order and occurred in the context of ongoing disputes concerning notice requirements, travel arrangements, and scheduling. The parties hold fundamentally different views about responsibility for the breakdown of that visit. Even if I were to accept aspects of the father's evidence, the record falls well short of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the mother deliberately prevented parenting time from occurring. At best, the evidence demonstrates disagreement regarding how the parenting provisions were to be implemented in changing circumstances. That is not contempt.
[63] The remaining incidents occurred during a period in which B.D.'s resistance to parenting time had become increasingly pronounced. By that stage, the evidence demonstrates that B.D. was expressing her own wishes with increasing clarity and was seeking greater control over her interactions with her father. The father's own submissions acknowledge that steps needed to be taken to accommodate B.D.’s wishes while maintaining the relationship.
[64] The evidence does not establish that the mother instructed B.D. to refuse parenting time or that she actively discouraged contact between father and daughter. To the contrary, the evidence demonstrates ongoing efforts by the mother to facilitate communication through various means, including text messaging, video calls, written correspondence, and the exploration of child-focused activities designed to support the relationship. I accept the mother’s evidence that she encouraged the relationship and sought to work within the realities of B.D.'s expressed wishes and emotional needs.
[65] The father's position is essentially that the mother should have exercised greater authority over B.D. and required her to participate despite her objections. However, a finding of contempt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the mother intentionally decided not to comply with a clear court order. The evidence before me does not establish that threshold. What it establishes is an increasingly difficult parenting dynamic in which a maturing adolescent was expressing resistance to contact and in which the mother was attempting to navigate the tension between encouraging the relationship and responding to B.D.'s wishes.
[66] Indeed, the evidence before me is inconsistent with the theory that the mother was deliberately undermining the father-daughter relationship. During the judicial interview, B.D. expressly stated that her mother encourages her to communicate with her father and to spend time with him. I have accepted that evidence.
[67] I simply cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the missed parenting-time occasions resulted from a deliberate and wilful breach of the court's orders by the mother. Rather, I find that they arose primarily from the increasingly challenging reality that the existing parenting regime no longer reflected B.D.'s circumstances or emotional needs.
[68] The father also relies on allegations that the mother failed to facilitate calls and communications in accordance with the existing orders. Again, I am unable to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that any non-compliance was deliberate and wilful. The evidence demonstrates an increasingly difficult situation in which a maturing child was expressing strong resistance to scheduled contact. The mother's response to that situation may not always have aligned with the father's expectations, but I am not satisfied that it constituted contempt of court.
[69] Even if aspects of the mother's conduct could have been handled differently, contempt is a serious remedy that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of deliberate and wilful disobedience of a clear court order. Having reviewed all of the evidence, I am not satisfied that this standard has been met.
[70] I therefore dismiss the father's motion for a finding of contempt against the mother.
C. The Mother's Contempt Motion Against the Father
[71] The mother's motion stands on a somewhat different footing from the father's motion. Unlike the allegations advanced by the father, several of the father's alleged breaches are either admitted or substantially established by the evidence before me.
[72] The mother points to a number of instances in which she says the father failed to comply with the letter or spirit of prior court orders. These include direct contact with B.D.'s school notwithstanding restrictions imposed by previous orders, failures to properly wind down calls with B.D. in accordance with her established routine, negative comments concerning the respondent and her spouse in B.D.'s presence, and failures to provide required financial disclosure relating to travel expenses.
[73] I am satisfied that the father contacted B.D.'s school notwithstanding the restrictions contained in Justice Smith's order. The father does not deny doing so. Rather, he maintains that he believed it was the only practical means available to communicate with B.D. at the time. Whatever his motivation, the contact occurred.
[74] I am also satisfied that there have been continuing difficulties concerning the management of the calls between father and daughter. This issue has a lengthy history in these proceedings. Justice Audet expressed concern about the burden that lengthy calls could place upon a child of B.D.'s age and circumstances. Justice Smith subsequently found that the father was not respecting the call limits established by the existing order and that the issue was problematic given B.D.'s need for routine. The evidence before me suggests that these difficulties did not fully resolve following Justice Smith's order.
[75] There is also evidence that the father made comments concerning the mother and her partner in circumstances where B.D. was exposed to them. During the judicial interview, B.D. reported that her father makes remarks about her mother’s wife and tells her that she is not her "real parent". B.D. described these comments as upsetting and stated that they contribute to her discomfort. The evidence as a whole supports the mother's concern that the father has, at times, failed to maintain appropriate boundaries regarding adult conflict in B.D.'s presence.
[76] I also share the mother's concern regarding compliance with certain disclosure obligations. The evidence raises legitimate questions regarding the father's compliance with orders requiring the production of travel-related financial information. The father acknowledges that some disclosure has not been provided in the form or within the timelines contemplated by the orders.
[77] These are not insignificant matters. I accept that the father did not view himself as deliberately disregarding court orders. In most instances, he offered explanations for his conduct and described his actions as attempts to maintain contact with B.D. or address concerns that he believed to be important. However, good intentions do not relieve a party from the obligation to comply with court orders. Orders of the court remain binding unless and until they are varied.
[78] Notwithstanding these concerns, I am not persuaded that the extraordinary remedy of contempt is appropriate in the circumstances of this case.
[79] As noted, contempt is a serious remedy with potentially punitive consequences. It is not intended to address every instance of non-compliance with a court order, nor should it become a routine enforcement mechanism in family proceedings. Even where the constituent elements of contempt have been established, a finding of contempt remains discretionary. The Supreme Court of Canada has emphasized that contempt is an enforcement mechanism that should be exercised cautiously and with restraint. In family law matters, the Court of Appeal for Ontario has similarly held that contempt should generally be used only where other remedies have proven ineffective or are unavailable: Carey, at para. 36; Hefkey v. Hefkey, 2013 ONCA 44, 30 R.F.L. (7th) 65, at para. 3.
[80] The court retains the discretion to decline a finding of contempt where it would not serve the interests of justice, including where the circumstances demonstrate that another remedy would be more appropriate: North Elgin Centre Inc. v. McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Limited, 2021 ONCA 173, at para. 45. In parenting disputes, the court must remain mindful that the ultimate objective is not punishment of a parent but the promotion of outcomes that best serve the child's needs and welfare. Where the real issue is that existing parenting arrangements are no longer functioning effectively, a variation of the parenting regime may be a more appropriate response than a finding of contempt: Hefkey, at para. 3; Townsend v. Marti, 2023 ONSC 5223, at para. 25.
[81] The difficulties in this case do not arise because either party requires punishment. Rather, they arise because the existing parenting structure has ceased to reflect B.D.'s present circumstances and because years of conflict have produced an increasingly dysfunctional dynamic. In my view, a finding of contempt against the father would do little to improve B.D.'s situation or her relationship with either parent.
[82] Much of the father's conduct reflects poor judgment, a lack of insight into the effect his actions have upon B.D., and an inability to accept limits and boundaries established by previous court orders. Those findings are serious. However, I am not satisfied that the circumstances warrant the exercise of the court's contempt jurisdiction. The more pressing issue is the need to restructure the parties' parenting arrangements and communications in a manner that better reflects B.D.'s needs and protects her from ongoing conflict.
[83] Accordingly, the mother's motion for a finding of contempt against the father is dismissed.
Conclusion Regarding Contempt
[84] I appreciate that both parties feel strongly that the other has failed to comply fully with prior orders. However, contempt findings are not a substitute for restructuring parenting arrangements that have ceased to meet a child's needs. In my view, the central issue before the court is not punishment for past conduct. It is how B.D.'s relationship with her father can be preserved and, if possible, repaired in a manner that respects her emotional needs, protects her well-being, and reduces the conflict that has surrounded her for much of her life.
VI. Parenting Time
[85] B.D. is no longer the young child who was before Audet J. in 2021 or Smith J. in 2024. She is now an adolescent who demonstrated considerable maturity, insight, and self-awareness during the judicial interview. She articulated her wishes and preferences clearly. She explained not only what she wants, but why she feels that way. For the reasons already given, I have accepted that those views are genuinely her own. I have further found that those views are not the product of coaching, manipulation, or alienation by the respondent. Rather, they reflect B.D.'s own experience of the relationship with her father and the pressures she presently associates with that relationship.
[86] Importantly, B.D. did not express a desire to sever her relationship with her father. To the contrary, she remains open to a relationship with him in the future. What she described was a need for relief from the pressure she experiences in relation to communication and parenting time right now.
[87] In my view, forcing B.D. to participate in scheduled calls or parenting time against her wishes would likely be counterproductive. The evidence before me establishes that efforts to compel contact have not improved the father-daughter relationship. Instead, they have contributed to B.D.'s anxiety and resistance. The objective of any new parenting arrangement should be to reduce pressure, preserve the relationship, and create opportunities for positive interactions that are centred on B.D.'s needs and interests rather than the ongoing conflict between the parties.
[88] The father understandably wishes to have a closer relationship with his daughter. I do not criticize him for that. Indeed, I find that his desire to remain actively involved in B.D.'s life is genuine and sincere. The difficulty is that the methods he has often used to maintain that connection have had the unintended consequence of pushing B.D. further away. Rebuilding the relationship will require patience, flexibility, and sensitivity to B.D.'s emotional needs.
[89] I recognize that the relief I am granting represents a significant departure from the parenting arrangements contemplated by the previous orders. However, those orders were fashioned at a time when B.D. was younger and when the court remained hopeful that structured and mandatory parenting time would strengthen and preserve the father-daughter relationship. The evidence now establishes that those arrangements are no longer workable. B.D. is older, more mature, and capable of expressing thoughtful and independent views. The court cannot simply ignore those realities.
[90] I wish to be clear that the court is not delegating the determination of parenting time to B.D. The responsibility for determining what arrangements are in her best interests remains with the court. Having considered B.D.'s age, maturity, expressed wishes and preferences, emotional circumstances, and the current state of the father-daughter relationship, I have concluded that compelled parenting time is not presently in her best interests. The orders that follow reflect that judicial determination.
[91] Accordingly, I conclude that the existing parenting provisions must be varied. The provisions of the prior orders requiring scheduled video calls, scheduled telephone calls, and mandatory in-person parenting time are terminated and replaced by the parenting regime set out below.
[92] B.D. shall not be required to participate in scheduled video or telephone calls with her father. However, she shall continue to have the ability to communicate with him by text message, email, written correspondence, or other mutually agreeable means. The respondent shall not interfere with communications initiated by B.D. and shall continue to encourage a positive relationship between B.D. and her father. At the same time, neither parent shall pressure B.D. concerning the timing, frequency, content, or nature of those communications. This issue is of particular importance given the concerns expressed by B.D. during the judicial interview.
[93] With respect to in-person parenting time, I am not satisfied that it is presently in B.D.'s best interests to require her to travel to British Columbia or to compel lengthy periods of parenting time. However, neither am I satisfied that the father-daughter relationship should simply be left to wither. B.D. expressed openness to rebuilding the relationship over time. It is therefore important that opportunities for positive contact remain available.
[94] The father may continue to travel to Ottawa if he wishes to do so. However, he shall provide the mother with no less than sixty days' written notice of his intention to visit Ottawa and the dates on which he intends to be present. Given the history of conflict surrounding travel arrangements and expense reporting, I am satisfied that this notice requirement is sufficient to permit reasonable planning by all concerned. I do not consider it necessary to continue the existing requirement that the father provide flight itineraries, booking references, travel receipts, or similar travel-related documentation. That requirement has become a source of continuing conflict while yielding little practical benefit. I recognize that the father’s child support payments were reduced to reflect the expense of travelling to Ontario and that adjustments may therefore need to be made to child support payments. However, that issue must be left to another day.
[95] Following receipt of the father’s notice of intention to travel to Ottawa, the mother may discuss with B.D. whether she wishes to spend time with her father during his visit. Any in-person parenting time shall occur only if B.D. expresses a willingness to participate. B.D. shall not be required to attend any activity or spend time with her father against her wishes.
[96] If B.D. wishes to spend time with her father, the parties should make reasonable efforts to facilitate activities that are consistent with her interests, comfort level, and emotional needs. During submissions, I raised the possibility of participation in an art-based activity because art is one of B.D.'s identified interests. The suggestion is not intended to be prescriptive. Rather, it is intended to illustrate the type of interaction that may presently be most beneficial to the relationship. Activities that are child-focused, structured, time-limited, and enjoyable for B.D. are more likely to promote positive interactions than lengthy visits focused on the conflict between the adults. Examples might include an art workshop, a craft class, a visit to a bookstore, a museum program, or another activity selected with B.D.'s input.
[97] The goal of such contact is not to immediately recreate the parenting schedule contemplated by earlier orders. The goal is to permit the relationship to rebuild gradually through positive experiences that B.D. experiences as safe, enjoyable, and free from pressure. If successful, those interactions may provide a foundation for broader parenting time in the future.
[98] For greater certainty, the father shall not directly or indirectly pressure B.D. to participate in parenting time or increase communications beyond her comfort level. This includes repeated requests for contact after she has indicated that she is not comfortable doing so, attempts to persuade her to change her mind, involving her in the parties' disputes, or using gifts, third parties, communication with the respondent mother or litigation to influence or contest her decisions. The court expects both parents to respect B.D.'s boundaries and emotional needs. Any future court considering parenting arrangements may consider whether the parties have respected the spirit and intent of this order.
[99] I also encourage the parties to consider reunification or relationship-focused counselling should B.D. become willing to participate. Such counselling should not be forced upon her. However, if B.D. expresses an interest in rebuilding the relationship with her father with the assistance of a professional, the parties should make reasonable efforts to facilitate that process.
[100] This order should not be understood as terminating the father's relationship with B.D. Nor should it be understood as rewarding resistance to parenting time. Rather, it reflects the reality of B.D.'s present circumstances. The court cannot order a meaningful relationship into existence. What it can do is create conditions that maximize the likelihood of such a relationship developing. In my view, reducing pressure, respecting B.D.'s emotional needs, and encouraging positive low-conflict interactions offer the best prospect of preserving and ultimately strengthening the bond between father and daughter. It is that relationship that this order seeks to protect.
VII. Litigation Abuse and Future Proceedings
[101] The respondent asks that the applicant be declared a vexatious litigant.
[102] Section 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, permits the court to restrict a litigant's ability to commence or continue proceedings where the litigant has acted persistently, without reasonable grounds, and in a vexatious manner. The analysis is objective and may be based either upon the commencement of vexatious proceedings or the conduct of litigation in a vexatious manner: Peoples Trust Company v. Atas, 2018 ONSC 58, at paras. 33-40.
[103] The mere fact that a litigant has commenced multiple proceedings is not sufficient. As the Court of Appeal observed in Foy v. Foy (No. 2) (1979), 1979 CanLII 1631 (ON CA), 26 O.R. (2d) 220 (C.A.), at p. 234, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [1979] 2 S.C.R. vii., the proceedings must have been instituted habitually, persistently, and without reasonable grounds. Courts are required to consider the whole history of the litigation. In Bishop v. Bishop, 2011 ONCA 211, at para. 6, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the motions judge which identified a number of indicia of vexatious conduct, including repeated attempts to relitigate issues that have already been determined, advancing claims that are doomed to fail, using legal proceedings to harass or oppress another party, carrying allegations from one proceeding into the next, and persistently pursuing unsuccessful motions and appeals.
[104] Having reviewed the evidence as a whole, I find that many of those indicia are present in this case.
[105] The applicant has repeatedly advanced allegations that have already been considered and rejected by the court. Multiple judges have found that his allegations against the respondent were unsubstantiated or lacked evidentiary foundation. Nevertheless, substantially similar allegations have reappeared in later motions, appeals, affidavits and submissions. Justice Smith noted that the applicant continued to raise allegations that were "not new" and were "very similar" to allegations advanced in previous proceedings. Justice Somji later concluded that the proposed appeal largely sought to relitigate issues that had already been determined.
[106] The litigation has also expanded beyond the family court proceedings. As noted, the applicant father has pursued complaints against professionals involved in B.D.'s medical, educational and therapeutic care. Some of those complaints proceeded to further review proceedings. The evidence also establishes repeated complaints to other institutions involved in B.D.'s life. While each complaint must be assessed on its own merits, the overall pattern is one of a dispute that has continually expanded into additional forums whenever the applicant has been dissatisfied with outcomes.
[107] I further find that the applicant father has demonstrated a limited ability to accept finality. Decisions that reject his position frequently become the subject of further proceedings. Issues that have already been adjudicated continue to resurface in subsequent motions. Even during the hearing before me, the applicant continued to advance allegations of parental alienation notwithstanding B.D.'s own explanation of her wishes and preferences. He continued to seek coercive remedies against the respondent mother for conduct that I found was not attributable to her. This illustrates the applicant's continuing inability to distinguish between his disagreement with an outcome and evidence that the respondent mother has acted improperly.
[108] The consequences of this pattern have been significant.
[109] The litigation has consumed substantial judicial resources. It has also imposed significant financial and emotional burdens upon the respondent mother. The evidence establishes that the mother has incurred substantial legal expenses over many years defending repeated proceedings. She describes living in a state of chronic stress and anxiety as a result of the ongoing litigation. Whether one accepts every aspect of her evidence or not, the overall impact of this litigation upon her is undeniable.
[110] More importantly, the impact does not end with the respondent mother. The mother is B.D.'s primary caregiver. The emotional energy, financial resources, and time required to respond to repeated motions, appeals, complaints and allegations are resources that cannot then be devoted to B.D.'s care. Justice Somji recognized this concern when she observed that the continuing litigation distracts from the mother's ability to focus on the care of a child with significant needs. I agree. The litigation has become harmful not simply because it affects the respondent, but because it ultimately affects B.D.
[111] In most cases, repeated litigation primarily affects the parties. This case is different. The evidence establishes that the continuing litigation has become one of the forces shaping B.D.'s daily life. It consumes resources that would otherwise be available for her care. It consumes emotional energy from her primary caregiver. It has exposed B.D. to years of conflict and instability. Most importantly, the litigation itself has become intertwined with the difficulties in her relationship with her father. The need for intervention therefore arises not primarily from the effect of the applicant's conduct on the respondent, but from its effect on B.D.
[112] I am therefore satisfied that intervention by the court is required.
[113] This conclusion is not based upon a single unsuccessful motion or appeal. It is based upon a pattern of conduct extending over many years and identified by multiple judges. The applicant father has repeatedly returned to issues that have already been adjudicated, expanded disputes into collateral forums, and demonstrated an ongoing inability to accept finality. Less restrictive measures, including increasingly detailed parenting orders, costs awards, restrictions on communications with professionals, and repeated judicial findings have not succeeded in bringing the litigation to an end. The court is therefore required to consider a remedy that addresses the pattern as a whole rather than any single proceeding.
[114] I accept that the applicant father loves B.D. deeply and sincerely wishes to maintain a meaningful relationship with her. I also accept that much of his litigation conduct has been motivated by a genuine, albeit misguided, belief that he is acting in her best interests. The difficulty is not malice. The difficulty is the father's inability to recognize the extent to which the continuing litigation is contributing to the very harm he seeks to prevent.
[115] The respondent seeks a declaration that the applicant is a vexatious litigant pursuant to s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act. Without making any determination as to whether the requirements of s. 140 have been established, I am satisfied that the issues raised by this motion can be more appropriately and proportionally addressed through Rule 14(21) of the Family Law Rules. That rule permits the court to prohibit a party from bringing further motions in a case without leave where the party has attempted to delay the case, increase its costs, or otherwise abuse the court's process by making numerous motions without merit.
[116] Having regard to the history of this litigation, I am satisfied that the applicant's conduct falls within the scope of Rule 14(21).
[117] In determining the appropriate remedy, I have considered the seriousness of an order restricting a party's ordinary ability to bring motions before the court. As the Court of Appeal for Ontario observed in Premi v. Khodeir, 2008 ONCA 313, 235 O.A.C. 339, at para. 2, an order restricting a litigant's ordinary ability to access the court is a serious remedy and should not be made without careful consideration. That caution applies equally to orders made under Rule 14(21) of the Family Law Rules. Such an order should not be made lightly. However, Rule 14(21) exists to protect both litigants and the court from repetitive and abusive motion practice.
[118] The evidence before me establishes a lengthy pattern of motion-driven litigation. The applicant has repeatedly raised substantially the same complaints and allegations despite prior judicial findings rejecting them. Findings made by previous judges have not brought finality. Instead, many of the same issues have resurfaced in subsequent motions and proceedings. The resulting litigation has imposed significant financial and emotional costs upon the respondent and has ultimately affected B.D.'s well-being.
[119] I am satisfied that less restrictive measures have not been effective. Costs consequences, detailed parenting orders, restrictions concerning professional involvement, and repeated judicial findings have not succeeded in curbing the repetitive litigation. In these circumstances, a leave requirement is necessary to protect the integrity of the court's process and to reduce further unnecessary litigation affecting B.D.
[120] I am satisfied that the applicant's conduct supports significant restrictions on his ability to bring further motions in this proceeding. However, I am also mindful that the applicant is a self-represented parent and that family circumstances can change over time. As B.D. matures, genuinely new issues may arise that warrant judicial intervention. The leave requirement strikes an appropriate balance between two competing considerations. On the one hand, the court must protect B.D. and the respondent from further repetitive and harmful litigation. On the other hand, the court must recognize that new issues may arise in the future. The leave requirement preserves the applicant's ability to seek future relief where a legitimate basis exists, while ensuring that repetitive litigation is screened before it can further impact B.D. and her family.
[121] The objective is not to close the courthouse doors to the applicant. Rather, it is to ensure that any future return to court is driven by genuinely new circumstances affecting B.D. rather than a repetition of disputes that have already been determined.
[122] Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 14(21) of the Family Law Rules, the applicant shall not bring any further motions in this proceeding without first obtaining leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice.
[123] Any request for leave shall be supported by a concise three-page affidavit setting out:
(a) the order sought;
(b) the material change in circumstances or new facts relied upon; and
(c) an explanation of why the issues proposed to be raised have not already been determined by the court and why the proposed motion has merit.
[124] The leave requirement imposed above is intended to provide B.D. with stability, reduce conflict, and create the conditions necessary for her relationship with her father to recover and develop outside the courtroom.
VIII. Restraining Order
[125] The respondent seeks a restraining order against the applicant.
[126] Restraining orders are significant remedies. They restrict a person's liberty and, if breached, may expose that person to serious legal consequences. As a result, courts have repeatedly emphasized that a restraining order is a drastic remedy that should be granted only where it is necessary to protect a party from future harm or harassment: K.M. v. G.C., 2025 ONSC 4507, at para. 142.
[127] The respondent mother relies in part upon an incident during which the applicant attended near the family residence and remained at the end of the driveway after parenting time did not proceed. The respondent and B.D. both found this conduct unsettling. During the judicial interview, B.D. described the incident as frightening and explained that it contributed to her discomfort and anxiety surrounding her father. I accept that evidence.
[128] I also accept that the applicant's conduct throughout the litigation has, at times, been intrusive and difficult for the respondent to manage. The record contains evidence of conduct that has understandably caused stress to the respondent and her household.
[129] That said, I must assess whether a restraining order is necessary at this time.
[130] While the driveway incident was troubling, I am not satisfied that the evidence establishes an ongoing pattern of threatening attendance at the respondent's residence or a course of conduct that presently requires the extraordinary remedy of a restraining order. The evidence before me establishes a single incident of this nature rather than a repeated pattern of similar behaviour. While troubling, it falls short of establishing the type of ongoing pattern of threatening conduct that would presently justify a restraining order.
[131] I also take into account the other relief granted in these proceedings. The parenting regime has been substantially restructured. Clear boundaries have been established respecting communication and parenting time. In addition, the leave requirement imposed by this order is intended to reduce the continuing conflict and litigation that has contributed significantly to the difficulties between the parties. Taken together, those measures address many of the concerns that underlie the request for a restraining order.
[132] Accordingly, I decline to grant a restraining order at this time.
[133] This finding should not be interpreted as minimizing the respondent's concerns or B.D.'s reaction to the applicant's conduct. Nor should it be interpreted as authorizing the applicant to attend at the respondent's residence, communicate inappropriately, or engage in conduct that causes the respondent or B.D. to fear for their safety. The applicant should understand clearly that such conduct is inappropriate and risks further damaging his relationship with his daughter.
[134] My dismissal of the request for a restraining order is therefore without prejudice to the respondent's right to bring a future motion should circumstances warrant. If the applicant engages in further conduct that is threatening, intimidating, harassing, or otherwise causes a reasonable fear for the safety of the respondent or B.D., the respondent shall remain at liberty to seek a restraining order based upon those future events.
IX. Disposition
[135] For the foregoing reasons:
The applicant's motion for a finding of contempt against the respondent is dismissed.
The respondent's motion for a finding of contempt against the applicant is dismissed.
The respondent's request that the applicant be declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act is dismissed.
However, pursuant to Rule 14(21) of the Family Law Rules, the applicant shall not bring any further motions in this proceeding without first obtaining leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice.
Any request for leave shall be supported by:
a. a notice setting out the precise order sought;
b. an affidavit not exceeding three pages in length;
c. a concise explanation of the material change in circumstances or new facts relied upon; and
d. a concise explanation of why the issue proposed to be litigated has not already been determined by the court and why the proposed motion has merit.
The respondent's request for a restraining order is dismissed, without prejudice to her right to seek such relief in the future should circumstances warrant.
The parenting provisions contained in the prior orders respecting scheduled telephone calls, scheduled video calls, mandatory parenting time, and mandatory travel for parenting time are terminated and replaced with the following terms:
a. B.D. shall not be required to participate in scheduled telephone or video calls with the applicant.
b. B.D. may communicate with the applicant by text message, email, written correspondence, or other mutually agreeable means if and when she chooses to do so.
c. The respondent shall not interfere with communications initiated by B.D. and shall continue to encourage a positive and healthy relationship between B.D. and the applicant.
d. Neither parent shall pressure B.D. concerning the timing, frequency, content, or nature of her communications with the other parent.
e. The applicant may travel to Ottawa for the purpose of spending time with B.D.
f. The applicant shall provide the respondent with not less than sixty (60) days' written notice of any proposed visit to Ottawa.
g. The applicant shall not be required to provide flight itineraries, booking references, travel receipts, or other travel-related documentation in relation to such visits.
h. Upon receiving notice of a proposed visit, the respondent may discuss the proposed visit with B.D.
i. Any in-person parenting time shall occur only if B.D. expresses a willingness to participate.
j. B.D. shall not be required to attend any activity or spend time with the applicant against her wishes.
k. If B.D. wishes to spend time with the applicant, the parties shall make reasonable efforts to facilitate child-focused activities selected with B.D.'s input and consistent with her interests, comfort level, and emotional needs.
l. The objective of any such activity shall be to provide opportunities for positive interaction and relationship-building in a manner that is structured, supportive, and free from pressure.
m. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly pressure B.D. to communicate with him or to participate in parenting time beyond her comfort level.
n. For greater certainty, repeated requests for contact after B.D. has indicated that she does not wish to communicate, attempts to persuade her to change her mind, involving her in adult disputes, or using third parties, correspondence with the respondent, or litigation to influence or contest her decisions are inconsistent with the intent of this order.
o. If B.D. expresses a willingness to participate in reunification or relationship-focused counselling in the future, the parties shall make reasonable efforts to facilitate such counselling.
- All prior orders remain in force except to the extent that they are expressly varied by this order.
[136] This order reflects the court's conclusion that the father’s current approach to parenting has become counterproductive. Although the father's objective has consistently been to maintain and strengthen his relationship with B.D., the evidence establishes that his conduct has often had the opposite effect, contributing to her increasing withdrawal from the relationship. The order therefore seeks to reduce the conflict, litigation, and pressure surrounding contact with the father, and to place greater control in B.D.'s hands so that any rebuilding of the relationship can occur in a manner that she experiences as safe, respectful, and emotionally manageable.
X. Costs
[137] I encourage the parties to come to an agreement on costs. If the parties are unable to resolve the issue of costs, they may schedule a 30-minute appearance before me. Ten days prior to that appearance the respondent shall file and serve written submissions not exceeding three pages in length, exclusive of bills of costs and offers to settle. Five days prior to that appearance, the applicant shall file and serve his written submissions of the same length.
Justice K.A. Jensen
Released: August 14, 2026
CITATION: C.D. v. J.A., 2026 ONSC 4735
COURT FILE NO.: FC-16-1014-2
DATE: 2026/08/14
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
C.D.
Applicant
– and –
J.A.
Respondent
Self-Represented Applicant
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mary Cybulski, for the Respondant
Justice K.A. Jensen
Released: August 14, 2026