What is the scope of the court's power to proceed and hear evidence and/or submissions in an effort to resolve the dispute between the parties?

[15] In my view, this court’s power to proceed and hear evidence and/or submissions in an effort to resolve the dispute between the parties is limited to the following situations: (1) Where the question is whether certain facts amount to the terminating event described in the decree, the court would have to be fully satisfied that there is only one possible interpretation which could be arrived at. Here the issue is generally the meaning, in law, of certain wording employed in the decree and, in light of Ruttan v. Ruttan, I think all doubts should be resolved in favour of a decision not to attempt to provide an answer. (2) Where the dispute is as to the facts themselves, it would seem permissible to go further. The court hears evidence in order to clarify such questions as “is the child really attending university”, “what was last year’s increase in the cost of living” or “how much did the debtor earn last year”? Once the necessary findings of fact have been made, these are then applied to the words of the decree (assuming these words are clear and create no interpretive difficulties). In my view, the risk of reaching conclusions that might be contrary to the intent of the court that made the original order is much less when one is unravelling factual disputes rather than engaging in what amounts to legal interpretation of an order.

[16] In this case, while very little was said on the motion about the present activities of the two boys, it would appear that there is little, if any, dispute about the facts. Rather, the dispute is whether those facts would support a finding that the children are still “normally resident” with their mother. I am of the view that, while this is an issue that is less than complex, it is also one that the decision in Ruttan v. Ruttan tells me I should not attempt to resolve as a prelude to enforcement proceedings.