Karen L. Douglas

The applicant father sought an order for the return of their 10-year-old son to Renfrew County, primary residence with him, and enrollment in a local school, along with temporary child support.

The respondent mother had unilaterally relocated the child to Welland and sought to maintain this relocation.

The court, applying the Divorce Act, found a material change in circumstances due to the relocation.

Despite the burden of proof being on the father to show the relocation was not in the child's best interests (due to the prior primary residence arrangement), the court found that the relocation caused significant disruption to the child's life, including reduced contact with the father and extended family, loss of school and friends, and the child's expressed wish to be closer to his father.

The mother failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the move or demonstrate that an equivalent educational program was unavailable locally.

The applicant father sought the return of his two children to England under the Hague Convention.

The mother had moved to Canada with the children under a temporary relocation agreement but later refused to return them.

The court found that the children were habitually resident in England, the father had custody rights which he was exercising, and he did not consent or acquiesce to their permanent relocation.

The court rejected the mother's defences under Articles 12 and 13 of the Hague Convention, finding no grave risk of harm.

The application was granted and the children were ordered returned to England.

The applicant father sought the return of his 12-year-old child to Brazil under the Hague Convention, alleging wrongful retention by the respondent mother in Ontario.

The mother conceded the retention was wrongful but raised defences under Article 13, arguing a grave risk of harm and that the child objected to returning.

The court found insufficient evidence of a grave risk of physical or psychological harm.

While acknowledging the child was mature and objected to returning, the court concluded the child's reasons were not substantial enough to meet the exceptional circumstances required to override the mandatory return provisions.

The application was granted and the child was ordered returned to Brazil.