The respondent mother brought a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Ontario court over custody proceedings, arguing that the child was habitually resident in India under s. 22 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.
The parties had travelled to India for a temporary visit, after which the mother remained there with the child.
The court found the child’s habitual residence remained Ontario because the father had not consented to or acquiesced in the child’s continued residence in India and had promptly commenced proceedings seeking the child’s return.
The court therefore assumed jurisdiction over custody and access and ordered the mother to return the child to Ontario within 60 days.
Temporary arrangements provided for the child to reside primarily with the mother upon return, with child and spousal support payable by the father.
