Andrew Alan Feldstein

The applicant father sought the return of his daughter, Naomi Rachelle Unger, to Tiveria, Israel, under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The family had travelled from Israel to Toronto for a vacation, after which the mother and child remained in Toronto.

The father argued that Israel remained the child's habitual residence and that the mother was wrongfully retaining her.

The mother contended that the parties had mutually agreed to change the child's habitual residence to Ontario, or alternatively, that the father had consented or acquiesced to her remaining in Ontario with the child.

The court found that the parties had a shared, settled intention to reside indefinitely in Ontario, thereby changing the child's habitual residence from Israel to Ontario.

Consequently, the Hague Convention did not apply.

Even if Israel were deemed the habitual residence, the court found that the father had unequivocally consented and/or acquiesced to the child remaining in Ontario.

The application for the child's return was dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary a temporary custody and access order seeking expanded parenting time and removal of restrictions on the children’s contact with paternal grandparents.

He relied on recent child protection agency letters indicating that abuse allegations made by each parent had not been verified.

The respondent opposed the variation and sought an adjournment pending completion of an ongoing investigation by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer under s. 112 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court held that although the agency letters were relevant, it was preferable to maintain stability for the children and await the investigator’s imminent report before altering the existing temporary arrangement.

The application was adjourned, but the order was varied to permit the father to supervise the grandparents’ access to the children.

The applicant brought a motion seeking interim child and spousal support and interim disbursements for a business valuation critique in a family law proceeding.

The primary issue was the respondent’s income for temporary support purposes, where the parties proposed significantly different income figures based on competing interpretations of corporate financial information.

The court accepted the respondent’s valuator’s income determination report prepared in conformity with Canadian Institute of Chartered Business Valuators standards and fixed the respondent’s income at $124,567 on an interim basis.

The court held that temporary support motions should avoid forensic accounting analysis where only one expert report is available.

Interim child support, mid-range spousal support, and partial interim disbursements to fund a critique report were ordered.

The respondent mother moved the child from Ontario to Alberta approximately two months after separation without notice to or consent from the applicant father.

The respondent argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because the child's habitual residence had changed to Alberta.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the child's habitual residence remained Ontario at the time the application was commenced.

The court held that a parent cannot unilaterally change a child's habitual residence by concealing a move and without the consent or acquiescence of the other parent, particularly when the period of de facto care is brief.

The respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleading for unreasonable disclosure in a family law proceeding.

The Court of Appeal declined to interfere with the motion judge's finding and exercise of discretion.

However, the Court amended the order to clarify that the appellant has the right to move to set aside the default by demonstrating that his disclosure efforts justify reinstating his pleadings.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed with costs.