Aisha Amjad

This high-conflict family law motion concerned the respondent mother's request to travel to Pakistan with the parties' seven-year-old son without the applicant father's consent, and to compel the father to consent to the child's passport renewal.

The applicant opposed, alleging abduction risk and citing safety concerns from Canadian travel advisories.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding the risks to the child's safety and security, coupled with the difficulty of return from a non-Hague Convention signatory country, outweighed the travel's benefits.

The applicant's cross-motion for Office of the Children's Lawyer involvement was deemed premature.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault following a jury trial.

During the trial, the appellant was excluded from the courtroom twice: once briefly during his own cross-examination, and again for the entirety of the pre-charge conference held in the trial judge's chambers.

On appeal, the appellant argued these exclusions violated his right to be present under s. 650(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal held that while the brief exclusion during cross-examination caused no prejudice and could be saved by the proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iv), the exclusion from the entire pre-charge conference was a serious breach of the open court principle that impaired the appearance of fairness.

The proviso could not save this breach.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.