Allison Kotler

Application under the Hague Convention seeking the return of a young child to Australia after the respondent parent remained in Ontario with the child following a trip from Melbourne.

The court considered whether the child’s habitual residence was Australia or Ontario and addressed defences of acquiescence and grave risk of harm under Article 13(b).

The evidence demonstrated that the parties had jointly relocated to Australia with a settled intention to live there, including relinquishing their Ontario residence and establishing living arrangements in Melbourne.

The court rejected claims that the move was merely exploratory and found no clear evidence of consent or acquiescence by the applicant to the child remaining in Ontario.

The respondent also failed to establish the high threshold of grave risk of harm necessary to prevent return.

The child was ordered returned to Australia with conditions and undertakings.

Following a successful motion by the applicant in matrimonial litigation to add additional parties, the court addressed costs on written submissions.

The respondents and proposed respondents had vigorously opposed the motion to add parties and argued that each party should bear their own costs or that costs should be reserved to the trial judge.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the principles governing costs articulated in Fong v. Chan, the court held that the successful party was presumptively entitled to costs.

The court found the applicant wholly successful and awarded substantial indemnity costs, subject to proportionality considerations and adjustments to the claimed amount.

Costs totalling $43,586.07 were fixed and apportioned among the former husband and the newly added parties.

In a long-running family law dispute following a marriage breakdown, the moving party sought to add several individuals, corporations, and family trusts as respondents to address alleged corporate oppression, trust administration issues, and unresolved financial interests linked to matrimonial property and a family trust.

The court considered whether the claims relating to corporate entities and a trust should be addressed within the family law proceeding or separately on the Commercial or Estates lists.

Applying the Family Law Rules and principles regarding the addition of parties, the court held that the issues were sufficiently interconnected with the matrimonial litigation.

Adding the entities and trustee would promote efficiency and avoid duplicative proceedings.

The motion to add several corporate entities, a trust, and an individual as respondents was granted, while requests to add two other proposed parties lacking a direct connection were dismissed.