Stephen A. Cooper

The respondent father brought a motion to find the applicant mother in contempt of two parenting time orders due to missed access visits in 2020 and 2022.

The court applied the three-part test for civil contempt and found that while the orders were clear and the mother had knowledge of them, her non-compliance was not intentional or was justified by a legitimate excuse.

The missed visits in 2020 were explained by a misunderstanding of notice requirements, COVID-19 isolation directives, and the child's chronic skin condition.

The missed visits in 2022 were due to the eight-year-old child's strong resistance to overnight access, despite the mother's reasonable good faith efforts to facilitate the visits and seek therapeutic support.

The contempt motion was dismissed.

The respondent father brought a motion for contempt against the applicant mother for continuously breaching court orders regarding his access to their child.

The court found the mother's evidence evasive and contradictory, particularly regarding the child's health and her manipulation of a doctor's note.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the mother willfully and intentionally disobeyed the parenting arrangements in the November 9, 2020, and March 29, 2021 orders, including virtual and in-person access.

The court deferred the penalty phase of the contempt motion until after the upcoming trial, emphasizing that all other enforcement means had been exhausted.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of an action for specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale of residential property.

The purchaser failed to provide funds to his solicitor by the contractual closing deadline, despite the agreement specifying that time was of the essence and requiring tender by certified funds from a lawyer’s trust account.

The court found the purchaser was not in funds on the closing date and that the vendor reasonably refused a requested extension.

The purchaser’s evidentiary record was deficient, as he failed to file affidavits from his solicitor or mortgage broker to support his claims regarding financing issues.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the claim, and the vendor was awarded damages and litigation costs set off against the purchaser’s deposit.