3 total
Hague Convention application dismissed; children's habitual residence remained Ontario after mother failed relocation conditions.
The applicant mother brought a motion under the Hague Convention seeking the return of the parties' two children to Florida, alleging the respondent father wrongfully removed them to Toronto.
The parties had signed a separation agreement permitting a temporary relocation to Florida, conditional on the mother obtaining an E2 visa and U.S. health insurance by a six-month review date.
The mother failed to meet these conditions.
The court applied the hybrid approach to habitual residence and found the children remained habitually resident in Ontario.
The father's return of the children to Toronto was not wrongful as it accorded with the conditional terms of the separation agreement.
The application was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent.
Temporary sole custody granted to father due to mother's intentional parental alienation.
The applicant father brought a motion for a temporary order granting him sole custody of two of his children, alleging parental alienation by the respondent mother.
The court reviewed extensive evidence, including reports from child protection workers, and found that the mother was intentionally engaging in parental alienation strategies to distance the children from their father.
Concluding that the children's expressed resistance to access was scripted and did not reflect their true feelings, the court ordered a temporary reversal of primary residence, granting sole custody to the father with restricted, supervised access for the mother.
Allegation of non-compliance with settlement agreement dismissed as society provided adequate reasons for adoption plan.
The applicant alleged that the respondent society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons for its adoption placement decisions regarding three siblings.
The society provided its written response one week after the agreed-upon compliance date.
The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the society breached the agreement regarding the timing of the response, the applicant suffered no prejudice.
The Board further found that the content of the society's written response, supplemented by oral explanations during the teleconference, fulfilled its obligations under the settlement agreement and the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.
The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.
