SLA v TJA

This decision arose from cross-applications by the parties to vary parenting arrangements, along with the father’s Application for a Declaration pursuant to Rule 10.52 that the mother was in civil contempt of the Order arising from the parties’ divorce (the “Divorce Order”).

Justice Akgungor noted that civil contempt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of an existing court order, notice of the order to the alleged contemnor, and an intentional breach without adequate excuse. Akgungor J. emphasized that contempt findings in family matters should be used sparingly and only as a last resort. The Court further highlighted that conduct occurring prior to the issuance of the Divorce Order could not ground a contempt finding, as the operative order must have been in effect at the time of the alleged breach.

The father relied on numerous alleged breaches related to exchange times, the right of first refusal, extra-curricular decision-making, and notice of his relocation. Justice Akgungor held that these concerns largely stemmed from ambiguities in the Divorce Order, reasonable differences in interpretation, and circumstances where the underlying purpose of the Divorce Order was not frustrated. The Court found that, since the terms of the Divorce Order lacked clarity in several key areas (particularly regarding exchange times, long‑change parenting time, and the operation of the right of first refusal), the mother’s conduct did not amount to intentional disobedience of the Divorce Order. Justice Akgungor therefore made no finding of contempt.

The Court directed that a revised parenting order (the “Revised Order”) be prepared by the mother and chose not to invoke Rule 9.4(2)(c), provided that the father signs the Revised Order within ten days of receipt.