The Snapshot
The Ontario Court of Appeal quashed a father’s appeal after he repeatedly ignored support and parenting orders and engaged in prolonged alienating conduct. In S.S. v. S.R.A., 2025 ONCA 724, the panel described the behaviour as egregious and imposed strict limits on his ability to bring future proceedings. It is a clear message: willful breach of support and parenting orders will trigger the court’s strongest remedies.
The Facts in Brief
The parties separated in June 2020 after the birth of their child.
Their high-conflict litigation culminated in a May 21, 2024 trial decision, where the trial judge found:
- the father engaged in “a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour” since separation;
- this conduct amounted to psychological abuse of the child;
- he kept the child out of school for several months to prevent the mother from exercising her ordered parenting time;
- he repeatedly disparaged and humiliated the mother.
The trial judge had ordered immediate payment of support arrears and ongoing compliance with parenting orders. He did neither.
On February 10, 2025, Zarnett J.A. issued a stay of the father’s appeal until he paid outstanding arrears, giving him 30 days to cure the default and authorizing the mother to bring a motion to quash if he failed. He failed to do so.
Instead of paying support, he launched an unsuccessful stay motion before Thorburn J.A., which was dismissed as an abuse of process.
On June 25, 2025, police were required to enforce a new order requiring him to return the child to the mother’s care.
Despite all this, he continued efforts to avoid support enforcement and scheduled yet another motion to stay the May 21, 2024 judgment—months into his non-compliance streak.
The Issues Before the Court
The Court considered:
- Whether this was an appropriate case to exercise discretion under s. 134(3) of the Courts of Justice Act to quash the appeal.
- Whether the father’s conduct amounted to frivolous and vexatious litigation, justifying procedural restrictions.
- The appropriate costs consequences for persistent, deliberate non-compliance.
The Court’s Analysis
1. Quashing an Appeal Under s. 134(3) CJA
Section 134(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. permits an appellate court to quash an appeal “in a proper case”. The Court reaffirmed that the power to quash is used only in “the clearest of cases.”
Appeals have been quashed where an appellant wilfully refuses to comply with support orders, including in Abu-Saud v. Abu-Saud, 2020 ONCA 824, 48 R.F.L. (8th) 330; Consentino v. Consentino, 2017 ONCA 593, 98 R.F.L. (7th) 53; Lamothe v. Ellis, 2022 789, 79 R.F.L. This was such a case.
2. Breach of Unstayed Orders
The father “deliberately and unwaveringly” breached clear orders requiring payment of spousal and child support and permitting the mother’s parenting time.
The Court restated the bedrock principle: Support and parenting orders are not stayed by an appeal and must be followed until varied or set aside.
His actions harmed his financially dependent child and former spouse and brought “the administration of justice into disrepute.”
3. Vexatious Litigation Pattern
The judgment is unsparing: “This is an egregious case.”
The father:
- refused to comply with court orders;
- pursued frivolous and unmeritorious steps aimed at relitigating support and parenting;
- filed “compendious and misleading materials”;
- failed to take the required steps to perfect his appeal.
The Court held the appeal was a thinly veiled attempt to revisit the trial judge’s factual and credibility findings— which the court found to be “careful findings of fact and credibility, all of which were open to the trial judge to make”.
4. Litigation as Punishment
The panel concluded that the father’s conduct formed: “an entrenched pattern of misconduct designed to punish his former wife and alienate her from their child.” (
This behaviour bore all the hallmarks of frivolous and vexatious litigation, consistent with Talwar v. Grand River Hospital, 2025 ONCA 35, and J.J.W. v. K.F., 2024 ONCA 362. The Court made it clear that it “cannot tolerate this kind of deliberate misbehaviour.”
The Result
The Court ordered:
- The appeal is dismissed as quashed.
- Full indemnity costs of $20,000, payable within 30 days.
- A litigation restriction order:
“Until the appellant has completely satisfied all court orders in the Superior Court of Justice and this court, including the costs order in paragraph 2 herein, he is not entitled to bring or continue any further proceedings, including motions to change, without first seeking, in writing, leave from the Superior Court or this court, as the case may be”
This is one of the most severe gatekeeping mechanisms available in family law.
Practical Takeaways for Ontario Family Lawyers
1. Support arrears matter—non-payment is fatal on appeal
The ONCA has no patience for wilful default. Demonstrating a sustained arrears history strengthens any quashing motion.
2. Act immediately on stay orders with deadlines
Zarnett J.A.’s 30-day deadline created a bright-line pivot point. Calendar these dates instantly.
3. Seek litigation restrictions earlier in the cycle
Where there is a clear pattern of abusive motions or relitigation, counsel should not hesitate to ask for leave-to-issue requirements.
4. Remember police enforcement remains a decisive tool
The June 25, 2025 order confirms that police enforcement is still viable and effective where a child is withheld.
5. Full indemnity costs are realistic in egregious cases
The Court did not hesitate to impose them here.
6. Demystify “stayed vs. unstayed” orders for clients
Support and parenting orders continue to bind unless there is an express stay. Period.
7. Failure to perfect can be part of the pattern
Non-action on perfecting an appeal reinforces the portrayal of frivolous litigation.
Commentary
This decision is a sharp reminder that appeals do not shield bad behaviour. The Court of Appeal applied its clearest-case doctrine decisively: a parent who weaponizes non-compliance, punishes the other parent through litigation, and disregards support and parenting obligations can lose access to the appellate process altogether.
The leave-to-issue restriction is significant. It places meaningful limits on a litigant who has shown they will misuse the system unless boundaries are imposed. This remedy, though extraordinary, is now expressly reaffirmed as available where misconduct is entrenched and punitive.
For settlement-oriented practitioners, this case adds weight in difficult files: clients must understand the real risks of defiance. Courts are not merely warning litigants—they are acting.
Let’s continue to elevate the practice of family law in Ontario!
Connect with us on LinkedIn.
Cheryl Goldhart is a Mediator and Arbitrator who can make a difference in resolving your family disputes.
- Four Decades of Specialized Family Law Practice: Cheryl brings a wealth of experience spanning nearly 40 years dedicated exclusively to family law.
- Masters Degree in Counselling: Her Masters Degree in Counselling informs her uniquely empathetic approach to each case.
- Certified Family Law Specialist: The Law Society of Ontario has certified Cheryl as a Family Law Specialist, recognizing her expertise in the area.
- Accreditation as a Mediator by the OAFM: Cheryl’s expertise is reflected in her accreditation from the Ontario Association for Family Mediation.
- Designated ADR Professional by Ontario’s ADR Institute: As a highly respected arbitrator, Cheryl’s designation reflects her recognized expertise in family law arbitration.
- Recipient of Numerous Awards and Honors: Among Cheryl’s many awards, honours and accolades is the prestigious Award for Excellence in Family Law from the Ontario Bar Association.
Legal Disclaimer: See Privacy Policy
Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog post is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice. Consult with a qualified family law attorney for advice regarding your specific situation. Goldhart Mediation & Arbitration is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information presented in this blog.
S.S. v. S.R.A.: No Compliance, No Appeal
By Cheryl Goldhart
Founder and Principal of Goldhart Law and Goldhart Mediation & Arbitration.
The Snapshot
The Ontario Court of Appeal quashed a father’s appeal after he repeatedly ignored support and parenting orders and engaged in prolonged alienating conduct. In S.S. v. S.R.A., 2025 ONCA 724, the panel described the behaviour as egregious and imposed strict limits on his ability to bring future proceedings. It is a clear message: willful breach of support and parenting orders will trigger the court’s strongest remedies.
The Facts in Brief
The parties separated in June 2020 after the birth of their child.
Their high-conflict litigation culminated in a May 21, 2024 trial decision, where the trial judge found:
The trial judge had ordered immediate payment of support arrears and ongoing compliance with parenting orders. He did neither.
On February 10, 2025, Zarnett J.A. issued a stay of the father’s appeal until he paid outstanding arrears, giving him 30 days to cure the default and authorizing the mother to bring a motion to quash if he failed. He failed to do so.
Instead of paying support, he launched an unsuccessful stay motion before Thorburn J.A., which was dismissed as an abuse of process.
On June 25, 2025, police were required to enforce a new order requiring him to return the child to the mother’s care.
Despite all this, he continued efforts to avoid support enforcement and scheduled yet another motion to stay the May 21, 2024 judgment—months into his non-compliance streak.
The Issues Before the Court
The Court considered:
The Court’s Analysis
1. Quashing an Appeal Under s. 134(3) CJA
Section 134(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. permits an appellate court to quash an appeal “in a proper case”. The Court reaffirmed that the power to quash is used only in “the clearest of cases.”
Appeals have been quashed where an appellant wilfully refuses to comply with support orders, including in Abu-Saud v. Abu-Saud, 2020 ONCA 824, 48 R.F.L. (8th) 330; Consentino v. Consentino, 2017 ONCA 593, 98 R.F.L. (7th) 53; Lamothe v. Ellis, 2022 789, 79 R.F.L. This was such a case.
2. Breach of Unstayed Orders
The father “deliberately and unwaveringly” breached clear orders requiring payment of spousal and child support and permitting the mother’s parenting time.
The Court restated the bedrock principle: Support and parenting orders are not stayed by an appeal and must be followed until varied or set aside.
His actions harmed his financially dependent child and former spouse and brought “the administration of justice into disrepute.”
3. Vexatious Litigation Pattern
The judgment is unsparing: “This is an egregious case.”
The father:
The Court held the appeal was a thinly veiled attempt to revisit the trial judge’s factual and credibility findings— which the court found to be “careful findings of fact and credibility, all of which were open to the trial judge to make”.
4. Litigation as Punishment
The panel concluded that the father’s conduct formed: “an entrenched pattern of misconduct designed to punish his former wife and alienate her from their child.” (
This behaviour bore all the hallmarks of frivolous and vexatious litigation, consistent with Talwar v. Grand River Hospital, 2025 ONCA 35, and J.J.W. v. K.F., 2024 ONCA 362. The Court made it clear that it “cannot tolerate this kind of deliberate misbehaviour.”
The Result
The Court ordered:
“Until the appellant has completely satisfied all court orders in the Superior Court of Justice and this court, including the costs order in paragraph 2 herein, he is not entitled to bring or continue any further proceedings, including motions to change, without first seeking, in writing, leave from the Superior Court or this court, as the case may be”
This is one of the most severe gatekeeping mechanisms available in family law.
Practical Takeaways for Ontario Family Lawyers
1. Support arrears matter—non-payment is fatal on appeal
The ONCA has no patience for wilful default. Demonstrating a sustained arrears history strengthens any quashing motion.
2. Act immediately on stay orders with deadlines
Zarnett J.A.’s 30-day deadline created a bright-line pivot point. Calendar these dates instantly.
3. Seek litigation restrictions earlier in the cycle
Where there is a clear pattern of abusive motions or relitigation, counsel should not hesitate to ask for leave-to-issue requirements.
4. Remember police enforcement remains a decisive tool
The June 25, 2025 order confirms that police enforcement is still viable and effective where a child is withheld.
5. Full indemnity costs are realistic in egregious cases
The Court did not hesitate to impose them here.
6. Demystify “stayed vs. unstayed” orders for clients
Support and parenting orders continue to bind unless there is an express stay. Period.
7. Failure to perfect can be part of the pattern
Non-action on perfecting an appeal reinforces the portrayal of frivolous litigation.
Commentary
This decision is a sharp reminder that appeals do not shield bad behaviour. The Court of Appeal applied its clearest-case doctrine decisively: a parent who weaponizes non-compliance, punishes the other parent through litigation, and disregards support and parenting obligations can lose access to the appellate process altogether.
The leave-to-issue restriction is significant. It places meaningful limits on a litigant who has shown they will misuse the system unless boundaries are imposed. This remedy, though extraordinary, is now expressly reaffirmed as available where misconduct is entrenched and punitive.
For settlement-oriented practitioners, this case adds weight in difficult files: clients must understand the real risks of defiance. Courts are not merely warning litigants—they are acting.
Let’s continue to elevate the practice of family law in Ontario!
Connect with us on LinkedIn.
Cheryl Goldhart is a Mediator and Arbitrator who can make a difference in resolving your family disputes.
Legal Disclaimer: See Privacy Policy
Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog post is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice. Consult with a qualified family law attorney for advice regarding your specific situation. Goldhart Mediation & Arbitration is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information presented in this blog.