|
Family - Arbitration. Thomson v. Fleming
In Thomson v. Fleming (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a family appeal, this brought against "a motion judge’s order waiving his participation in the parties’ 13-year-old child’s passport application as well as his consent to her travel".
This appeal was grounded in the argument that "the motion judge did not have jurisdiction to make this order because the parties have retained a parenting coordinator with arbitral authority over these issues":[2] The appellant argues that the motion judge did not have jurisdiction to make this order because the parties have retained a parenting coordinator with arbitral authority over these issues and the respondent, Jill Anne Fleming, was not enforcing an arbitration award. He seeks an order that the issues regarding the child’s passport and travel be remitted to the parenting coordinator in accordance with the parties’ Parenting Coordination Agreement entered into in May 2024, in conjunction with a final consent order. This appeal is without merit.
[3] On May 18, 2025, the parenting coordinator made an award in which she ordered the appellant to “take all steps necessary to obtain [the child’s] passport and confirm to the [parenting coordinator] that this has been resolved.”
[4] The respondent’s motion, brought on notice before the Superior Court of Justice in August of 2025 was an enforcement motion in which the respondent sought an order that she be permitted to have the child’s passport issued without further participation from the appellant and an order permitting her to travel with the child without his consent. The motion judge accepted the respondent’s evidence that the appellant had been obstructing the application for the child’s passport and that the child, an accomplished athlete, requires the passport for international sport-related travel. It is clear that, in his view, the ancillary relief of dispensing with the appellant’s consent to travel was also required.
[5] The motion judge appropriately exercised his authority to make an enforcement order, as permitted by r. 32.1(2) [SS: 'Enforcement of family arbitration awards - When required to proceed by motion'] of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99.I.
Disposition
[6] The appeal is dismissed. . Rathee v. Rathee
In Rathee v. Rathee (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed a family law appeal, this from a JR, this against a family arbitration regarding spousal support.
Here the court comments on a leading family arbitration case:[22] In a leading family law arbitration case, Petersoo v. Petersoo, 2019 ONCA 624, Benotto J.A. said, at paras. 35 and 36:Mediation/arbitration is an important method by which family law litigants resolve their disputes. Indeed, the courts encourage parties to attempt to resolve issues cooperatively and to determine the resolution method most appropriate to their family. The mediation/arbitration process can be more informal, efficient, faster and less adversarial than judicial proceedings.
...
The essence of arbitration is that the parties decide on the best procedure for their family. Although the family law of Ontario must be applied, the procedures on an arbitration are not meant to mirror those of the court.
|
