The Applicant brought a motion for a finding of contempt against the Respondent for unilaterally denying him access to their son.
The Respondent had denied access based on information from the Applicant's estranged ex-girlfriend concerning an alleged altercation and steroid use.
The court found the Respondent in contempt, ruling that the alleged incident did not constitute a "serious risk of harm" to the child, which is the only legal justification for breaching a court order.
The Applicant's original unsupervised access was reinstated, and makeup access was granted.
The Respondent's cross-motion for an interim variation of access and a s. 30 assessment was denied leave and adjourned to a Case Conference, as no urgency or clear case for relief was established.
