Evan Corey

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention seeking the return of his two-year-old child from Ontario to Australia.

The respondent mother opposed the application, arguing the child's habitual residence was in Ontario and raising exceptions under Articles 13(a) and 13(b).

The court found that the child's habitual residence had become Ontario prior to the alleged wrongful retention, largely due to the parties' relocation plans and the father's abusive conduct and withdrawal of financial support.

Alternatively, the court found the father had acquiesced to the child remaining in Ontario.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion under Rule 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules seeking an interim transitional parenting schedule culminating in equal parenting time.

The parties separated in April 2020, and the applicant was required to leave the matrimonial home in August 2021 due to criminal charges and bail conditions preventing him from being near the respondent.

The court found no urgency, as the respondent had offered a reasonable interim parenting schedule that would allow the applicant to see the child on six days out of fourteen.

The motion was dismissed, and an interim parenting schedule was ordered based on the respondent's proposal.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding interim parenting of their three children pending trial.

Following a custody and access assessment by Dr. Horvath, the parties agreed to unsupervised access for the mother but disagreed on the specific schedule and interim custody.

The court ordered a five-week rotation schedule giving the mother one weekend without children to regroup, and maintained the children's primary residence with the father.

The court declined to make an interim order for parallel custody, leaving decision-making issues for the trial judge, and dismissed the mother's request for a report from the Children's Aid Society.