Chris Stankiewicz

The Office of the Children's Lawyer brought a motion to stay an order requiring a mother to return her two children to Germany pursuant to the Hague Convention, pending an anticipated application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The father opposed the stay and challenged the OCL's standing.

The court assumed standing but dismissed the stay motion, finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm to the children, and that the balance of convenience favoured their prompt return to Germany to have custody determined in their habitual residence.

The appellant father and respondent mother lived in Germany with their two children.

The mother brought the children to Ontario for a time-limited educational stay with the father's consent.

When the consent period expired, the mother refused to return the children to Germany.

The application judge ordered the children's return under the Hague Convention, finding their habitual residence remained in Germany.

The Divisional Court reversed this decision, finding the habitual residence had changed to Ontario.

The Court of Appeal allowed the father's appeal, holding that a parent cannot unilaterally change a child's habitual residence during a time-limited consensual stay, and ordered the children returned to Germany.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings on certain issues for non-compliance with various disclosure orders.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion, noting ample evidence that the appellant remained in default and that the default was wilful.

The motion judge had mitigated the drastic remedy by allowing the appellant to move to reinstate his pleadings on proper evidence, which he failed to pursue in a timely fashion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an interlocutory order for the pre-trial sale of the matrimonial home under the Partition Act.

The respondent challenged the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction, arguing that section 7 of the Partition Act directs such appeals to the Divisional Court.

The panel agreed it lacked jurisdiction as the Court of Appeal but, given the imminent trial date, was designated as a panel of the Divisional Court to hear the matter.

On the merits, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the sale order, noting the motions judge failed to explicitly address whether the sale would prejudice the appellant's rights under the Family Law Act and that a pre-trial sale was practically unnecessary.