Abeer Abosharia

The mother, a Jordanian citizen, brought the parties' three children from Kuwait to Ontario and sought a parenting order.

The father, residing in Kuwait, challenged Ontario's jurisdiction and sought the return of the children pursuant to Kuwaiti custody orders.

The court found that while the children were not habitually resident in Ontario at the time the application commenced, Ontario had jurisdiction under s. 22(1)(b) of the Children's Law Reform Act due to the children's physical presence, substantial connection, and the balance of convenience.

Alternatively, the court found jurisdiction under s. 23, as the children would suffer serious harm if returned to Kuwait due to the risk of psychological harm, family violence, and the children's strong views against returning.

The father's request to recognize the Kuwaiti orders was dismissed.

The respondent sought costs of $4,898.55 on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully defeating the applicant's motion for the trial judge's recusal.

The applicant, a self-represented mother, claimed an inability to pay.

The court noted significant deficiencies in the respondent's bill of costs, including a failure to break down hours spent specifically on the recusal motion.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court fixed costs at $600 payable by the applicant to the respondent.

The self-represented applicant brought a 14B motion seeking leave to appeal a prior order that restricted further motions without permission.

The court clarified that the prior order was not intended to apply to motions for leave to appeal or stay the order itself.

The court granted permission for the motion, if required, and directed the applicant to serve and file the motion in the regular course pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant and respondent each brought motions.

The applicant sought to dismiss previous court orders and trial proceedings, while the respondent sought orders for the children's return to London, deposit of their travel documents, and restrictions on their removal from London.

The court found the applicant's motion lacked urgency and merit, and her conduct demonstrated non-compliance with prior orders regarding the children's residence.

The respondent's motion was granted, ordering the children's return to London, deposit of their passports and birth certificates with the court, and strict conditions on future travel and residence changes.

The applicant's motion was dismissed.

The applicant brought an oral motion for the recusal of the trial judge, alleging bias due to the judge's prior involvement in case management and administrative functions related to the file.

The respondent opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, finding that the applicant failed to meet the high onus of establishing a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The decision emphasized the presumption of judicial impartiality, the fact-specific nature of recusal cases, and the importance of judicial continuity in family law proceedings.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer moved for the appointment of amicus curiae in a complex international child abduction case.

Both the self-represented applicant and the respondent opposed the motion.

The court granted the motion, finding that the applicant's conduct, including her inability to focus on legal issues, failure to file evidence, and mistrust of the court process, risked injustice.

The court determined that amicus assistance was essential for a fair and orderly trial, despite the applicant's right to self-representation, and that the potential for delay was manageable.

The applicant sought an adjournment of a five-day trial in an international child abduction case, citing educational conflicts, inability to file evidence after counsel termination, and uncompleted procedural steps.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, while the Office of the Children's Lawyer did not, noting the children's preference to remain with the applicant.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, emphasizing the need for prompt disposition in international child abduction cases under Rule 37.2 of the Family Law Rules, and found her reasons insufficient to warrant delay.

At a case management appearance, the self-represented applicant sought to adjourn the upcoming trial and amend her application to advance a new theory.

The court scheduled a motion to adjourn the trial before the trial judge and granted the applicant leave to file an amended application.

The matter returned to update the court on the parties' readiness for trial regarding a jurisdictional dispute over child custody between Ontario and Kuwait.

The applicant requested more time to prepare, but the court directed the trial to commence in November 2023 as a hybrid proceeding.

The court also permitted the filing of a lengthy affidavit on behalf of the Children's Lawyer and scheduled a further update.

The parties appeared for an update on trial readiness in a family law matter.

The self-represented applicant requested Kuwaiti court documents from the respondent, which he agreed to attempt to provide.

The court noted that preliminary resolution steps would not be pursued and directed the trial coordinator to schedule an expedited trial.

The matter was adjourned to September 5, 2023, for a further update.

The matter was before the court for the commencement of a trial regarding an international child abduction.

On consent of the parties and the Children's Lawyer, the trial was adjourned to allow the parties to obtain expert reports on Kuwaiti family law, file an expert report from the Children's Lawyer, and arrange relationship counseling for the children.

A further appearance was scheduled to monitor progress.

The applicant brought a motion regarding an international child abduction claim.

The court noted that the Children's Lawyer had not been notified and a first meeting had not been held, as required by the Family Law Rules.

Given the issues of credibility and the need for expert evidence on foreign law, the court adjourned the motion, ordered the involvement of the Children's Lawyer, and scheduled a trial of the issues.

The applicant maternal grandmother moved to amend a previous costs order of $85,000 against the respondent father, seeking to apportion 50 percent of the costs to child support.

The father had declared bankruptcy, and costs attributed to child support survive bankruptcy.

The court found it had jurisdiction to apportion costs retroactively.

However, because child support was resolved by consent before trial and was not a contested issue, the court declined to apportion 50 percent as requested.

Instead, considering the time spent and complexity, the court apportioned 10 percent of the costs to child support.