Chantal A. McCollum

The applicant mother sought the return of her five-year-old daughter to China, alleging the respondent father wrongfully retained the child in Ontario after a visit.

The father argued the child's habitual residence was Ontario, or alternatively, that returning the child to China would cause serious harm.

Applying the hybrid approach, the court determined the child's habitual residence remained China.

The court found the father failed to establish that the child would suffer serious harm if returned.

The court declined to assume jurisdiction and ordered the immediate return of the child to China.

The applicant mother brought a motion to set aside Minutes of Settlement she had signed, alleging mistake, lack of independent legal advice, and duress.

The court found that the mother understood the agreement, had explicitly waived independent legal advice, and was not subjected to duress or coercion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the mother simply changed her mind, and ordered a final judgment in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement.

This decision addresses the costs of motions brought by the respondent seeking specific parenting time, and a cross-motion by the applicant regarding access.

The applicant successfully argued that the motions were not urgent and should be adjourned pending a case conference.

The court awarded costs to the applicant, finding that the respondent's motion was premature and that the applicant's offer for an early case conference was rejected.

Costs were fixed at $2,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable by the respondent within 30 days.

This decision addresses two motions in a family law matter concerning parenting time and access for three children.

The respondent sought specific parenting time, while the applicant sought access according to the children's wishes and, as a preliminary matter, an adjournment of both motions until a case conference.

The court considered the urgency of the motions, noting the respondent had not seen the children for six weeks due to the applicant's unilateral suspension of access.

However, the court found that neither motion met the threshold for urgency under sub-rule 14(4.1) of the Family Law Rules to be heard prior to a case conference, as a conference could have been scheduled earlier.

Consequently, both motions were adjourned without a date, and the parties were directed to secure an early case conference.