Refusing parenting time pursuant to ET v. B R, 2026 ONSC 3727
When children refuse to attend court-ordered parenting time, how far must the primary residential parent go to ensure compliance? And when that parent fails to act, is a contempt motion the right tool to force their hand?
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently tackled these challenging questions in ET v. BR, 2026 ONSC 3727. In a high-conflict family dispute involving three children, the court delivered a masterclass on the limits of "passive parenting," the strict technicalities of civil contempt, and the extraordinary nature of police enforcement.
The "Passive Parenting" Defense
The father in this case brought a motion to find the mother in contempt of three successive parenting time orders. For the vast majority of the scheduled visits, the father's time simply did not happen.
The mother defended herself by adopting a passive stance. She argued that she complied with the orders by putting the children in the car and driving them to the exchange location (the parking lot of a police station). When the children refused to exit the vehicle, she claimed she had done all she could do. She argued that she was merely "encouraging" the children, following the lead of a reunification counsellor, and that she could not physically force them to go.
Justice Stewart firmly rejected this abdication of parental responsibility. The court noted that compliance with a court order is the responsibility of the parents, not the children.
"A parent cannot abdicate their parenting responsibilities... A parent must do all they reasonably can to secure compliance with a court order... Ms. Rodriguez is the primary parent to all three children. She has parental authority. It is a reasonable inference that she, like every other parent, is required to use her parental authority for daily tasks that children might otherwise not want to do."
The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the mother’s failure to use her parental authority to ensure her children attended the visits was intentional.
The Technical Limits of Contempt
Despite finding that the mother flagrantly and intentionally breached the court's orders, Justice Stewart ultimately declined to find her in contempt. The legal reasoning provides two critical reminders for family law practitioners:
1. You Cannot Be Found in Contempt of an "Expired" Order The father sought contempt findings for three different orders. However, the first two orders had already been superseded by newer, graduated schedules. The court noted a fundamental rule of civil contempt: it is an enforcement remedy for live, operative orders. It cannot be used to sanction historical breaches of orders that no longer govern the parties.
2. Contempt is a Remedy of Last Resort For the third (and currently active) order, the court found that the father had proven all three elements of civil contempt beyond a reasonable doubt: the order was clear, the mother had actual knowledge of it, and she intentionally breached it.
Yet, the court exercised its residual discretion to deny the contempt finding. Citing the quasi-criminal nature of contempt and the need to prevent further escalation in family disputes, the judge ruled that contempt is a power of "last, and not first, resort." Because the father had not brought a standard enforcement motion (under Family Law Rule 1(8)) before leaping to a contempt motion, the contempt request was deemed premature.
Denying Police Enforcement and Imposing Fines
The father also requested police enforcement under section 36 of the Children’s Law Reform Act. The court denied this extraordinary remedy, noting that the children were already disengaged and that involving police (especially since exchanges were already occurring at a police station) would likely worsen the trauma.
Instead of contempt or police intervention, the court opted for immediate, practical financial consequences:
Fines for Non-Compliance: The mother was ordered to pay $250 for every future date that the children fail to attend scheduled parenting time or reunification therapy.
Further Enforcement Motion: The judge seized herself of a future enforcement motion, meaning the factual findings of the mother's intentional breaches were locked in for the next hearing.
Are you looking for a child custody lawyer in Ottawa? Click here for a consultation.
