Carol-Jane Parker

The appellant mother travelled to Ontario from Dubai with her two children for a visit, but subsequently informed the respondent father that she would not return.

The father commenced proceedings in Ontario seeking a return order under s. 40 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The trial judge declined jurisdiction under ss. 22 and 23 of the Act, ordered the children returned to Dubai, and dismissed the mother's constitutional challenges to s. 40(3).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the mother's appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the risk of serious harm under s. 23, and upholding the constitutionality of the return order provision under both division of powers and the Charter.

The parties separated after a 16-year marriage.

The mother, a high-income anesthesiologist, sought sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of their two children.

The father, an engineer, sought joint decision-making and equal parenting time, as well as spousal support.

The court ordered joint decision-making responsibility, with the mother having final say on medical issues.

The father was granted regular parenting time, but the 14-year-old daughter's overnights were left to her discretion.

The father was awarded non-compensatory spousal support of $3,346 per month for a fixed duration, and the mother was ordered to pay 100% of the children's section 7 expenses, which was factored into the spousal support quantum.

In a non-Hague international child retention case, the court held that Ontario lacked jurisdiction under ss. 22 and 23 of the Children’s Law Reform Act to determine custody and access respecting two Canadian children retained in Ontario after a temporary trip from Dubai.

The court found the children were habitually resident in Dubai, there was a pending Dubai proceeding, and the evidence did not establish serious harm if they were returned.

The court also rejected a constitutional challenge to s. 40(3) of the Act, holding that the return-order provision was intra vires Ontario and did not violate ss. 2(a), 6, 7, or 15 of the Charter.

A return order to Dubai was granted, together with ancillary enforcement and sealing-related relief.

In a family law trial concerning whether two young children should be returned to Dubai, the respondent mother brought an application to adduce expert opinion evidence from a psychotherapist.

The proposed evidence concerned the potential emotional and psychological impact on infants separated from their primary caregiver.

The applicant father opposed the admission of the evidence.

Following a voir dire, the court applied the test for expert evidence and found the proposed expert was properly qualified and capable of giving fair, objective, and non-partisan evidence.

The court granted the application, permitting the expert to testify strictly on the potential impact of separation from a primary caregiver, but prohibited her from opining on the specific attachment of the children to either parent.

The applicant father sought sole custody of the youngest child following a high-conflict separation where the respondent mother successfully alienated the three children from him.

Despite numerous attempts at reintegration therapy and various access schedules, the youngest child continued to refuse meaningful contact with the father.

The court found that the mother engaged in unilateral, deliberate, and successful parental alienation, which amounted to emotional abuse.

Concluding that leaving the child with the mother would permanently sever the father-child relationship, the court ordered a custody reversal, granting sole custody to the father and suspending all contact between the child and the mother for a minimum of six months to facilitate reconciliation therapy.

The applicant mother, who had sole custody of the child, sought permission to relocate with the child to New York to join her new husband.

The respondent father opposed the move, seeking joint custody and increased parenting time, citing concerns about the child's heart condition and the impact on his relationship with the child.

The court found a material change in circumstances and conducted a fresh best interests analysis.

Noting the chronic high conflict between the parents and the father's history of undermining the mother's custodial authority, the court concluded it was in the child's best interests to remain in the mother's sole custody and permitted the relocation.

A detailed access schedule and child support obligations were ordered.

The applicant mother brought a motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The parties continued to reside together with their two children in a highly tense and hostile environment following their separation.

The court considered a psychotherapist's report indicating that the 16-year-old daughter was suffering from anxiety and depression due to the respondent father's behavior, which the court found amounted to psychological assault.

Applying section 24 of the Family Law Act, the court determined it was in the best interests of the children to grant the applicant interim temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.