Alexandra Grant

The Father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' four-year-old daughter to Arizona, her habitual residence, after the Mother unilaterally removed her to Ontario.

The Mother sought a declaration that Ontario had jurisdiction and argued that the Hague application was commenced more than one year after the wrongful removal, and that the child was settled in Ontario.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was Arizona, the removal was wrongful, and the Father did not consent or acquiesce.

The court determined that the Hague proceedings were commenced within one year of the removal.

Even if not, the court found the child was not sufficiently settled in Ontario to dismiss the application, emphasizing the Convention's objectives of deterrence and rapid return, especially for a young child whose environment is primarily family-centric.

The court ordered the child's return to Arizona.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for failure to comply with multiple court orders for financial disclosure and to obtain costs on a full recovery basis.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing he had provided adequate disclosure and was reluctant to provide further disclosure due to alleged identity theft and misuse of confidential information by the applicant.

The court declined to strike the pleadings, finding that while the disclosure was inadequate, the respondent had provided some disclosure, explained his reasons for non-compliance, and the child support order was in good standing.

The court gave the respondent one further opportunity to produce required disclosure with strict limits on its use and distribution.