The appellant, a non-custodial father, brought an action against his former wife and her new husband, alleging they deliberately frustrated his court-ordered access to his children.
He claimed damages for conspiracy, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and breach of fiduciary duty.
The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that no tort action exists for interference with access rights, as the legislature has provided a comprehensive statutory scheme for custody and access.
The Court also declined to recognize a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty in this context, finding that such litigation would not be in the best interests of the children.
