Farrah Hudani

The respondent mother sought to stay the Court of Appeal's order requiring the return of a five-year-old child to the United Kingdom pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, pending her application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The father had successfully appealed a Superior Court decision that dismissed his application for the child's return, on the basis that the father had consented to or acquiesced in the child's retention in Canada.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred in conflating consent to relocation with consent to retention.

The motion judge dismissed the mother's stay motion, finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the child's return to the jurisdiction of habitual residence.

The decision concerns a Hague Convention application by Mr. Patel for the return of his children to Morocco after their removal to Canada by Ms. Hamdaoui.

The court found that the children were habitually resident in Morocco at the time of removal, that Mr. Patel had and was exercising rights of custody, and that no defences to return (consent/acquiescence or grave risk of harm) were established.

The court ordered the return of the children to Morocco and set out undertakings and directions for the parties.

The applicant father sought a "chasing order" for declaratory relief that the child, F.K., is habitually resident in Brampton, Ontario, and for the child's return from Poland under the Children’s Law Reform Act and the Hague Convention.

The court found that F.K. was wrongfully retained in Poland by the mother and ordered the child's immediate return to Ontario.

The decision reviews the legal principles of habitual residence, wrongful retention, and the best interests of the child, and addresses the credibility of the parties' evidence.

The Father applied under The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction for the return of the parties' child, Miraya Devi Chawla, to Champaign, Illinois, alleging wrongful retention by the Mother in Ontario.

The Mother argued that Ontario was the child's habitual residence or, alternatively, that returning the child to Illinois would pose a grave risk of harm due to alleged domestic violence and her uncertain immigration status.

The court found that Miraya's habitual residence was Champaign, Illinois, and that she was wrongfully retained.

The court also found that the Mother did not meet the high threshold for the Article 13(b) exception regarding grave risk of harm, especially with the Father's undertakings to mitigate risks.

The application for the child's return was granted.

The Applicant sought the return of the children to Singapore pursuant to the Hague Convention, arguing Singapore was their habitual residence.

The Respondent contended the children's habitual residence was Ontario, asserting the move to Singapore was temporary for family support during pregnancy.

The court applied the hybrid approach to habitual residence, considering all circumstances including parental intentions and the children's connections.

The court found that the parties' intention was always to return to Canada, supported by evidence such as storage of belongings and daycare registrations.

The Hague application was dismissed, and the Ontario court was found to have jurisdiction over custody and access, as the children were habitually resident in Canada.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2019 final consent order regarding parenting of their 8-year-old child.

The respondent father had withheld in-person parenting time from the mother for three years and was previously found in contempt.

The child exhibited severe behavioural issues and defiance toward the mother but not the father.

The court found a material change in circumstances and ordered a hybrid parenting plan, requiring immediate reunification therapy paid for by the father, 50/50 parenting time pending a review, and for the court to remain seized of the matter for one year to ensure compliance and monitor the child's best interests.

The Respondent mother and the Children's Lawyer brought a summary judgment motion against the Applicant father seeking sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the children, child support, contribution towards s.7 expenses, no equalization payment, and dismissal of the father's spousal support claim.

The father, who is self-represented and suffers from significant disabilities, opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding that a fair and just determination could not be made due to insufficient evidence, particularly regarding the father's medical condition and financial disclosure, and the rushed scheduling of the motion.

However, the court issued interim parenting orders granting the mother sole decision-making and primary residence, with the father's parenting time to be in accordance with the children's wishes, including supervised contact for the younger child.

The court also ordered further disclosure and a settlement conference, declining to award costs to any party due to mixed conduct.

The applicant mother sought the return of her two children to Costa Rica under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, arguing they were habitually resident there and wrongfully retained in Canada by the respondent father.

The father contended the move to Costa Rica was temporary and the children's habitual residence remained Ontario.

The court applied the hybrid approach to determining habitual residence, considering parental intention and the children's acclimatization, and found that the children's focal point of life was Costa Rica as of August 11, 2023.

The application was granted, and the children were ordered to be returned to Costa Rica, as no exceptions to return applied.

The respondent moved to dismiss the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction and to set aside ex parte orders from 2018 and 2019.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the ex parte orders, finding it was too late given the years of litigation abroad under the Hague Convention.

Regarding jurisdiction, the court found Ontario clearly had jurisdiction as the children were habitually resident there.

The court declined to rule on forum non conveniens (s. 25 CLRA) as premature, pending the outcome of the applicant's appeal in Morocco concerning the children's return, noting concerns about the UAE court's custody decision (gender bias, lack of best interests consideration, and recognition of Talaq divorces).

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from the dismissal of the Applicant father's Hague Convention application for the return of his daughter to Florida.

The Respondent mother sought $64,379.73 in full indemnity costs and requested the order be enforceable as a support order.

The court applied the principles of costs in family law, emphasizing proportionality and reasonableness.

It found the Respondent's counsel's billed time excessive and dismissed the claim for full indemnity costs, as no basis under the Family Law Rules was established.

The request to deem the costs a support order was also denied, as the original application did not involve support issues.

The court awarded the Respondent $35,000.00 in costs.

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his Hague Convention application seeking the return of his 3.5-year-old daughter from Toronto to Florida, arguing the application judge erred in determining the child's habitual residence.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's finding that the child's habitual residence was Toronto, concluding there was no wrongful removal or retention, regardless of the specific date chosen for determination.

The court also dismissed the father's arguments regarding the application judge's alleged overemphasis on parental intention, inadequate reasons, and allowing the mother to participate without filing an Answer.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant withdrew his family law application against the respondent's family members (the Gandhis) prior to trial.

The Gandhis and the respondent moved for costs of the withdrawn proceeding under Rule 12(3) of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant argued that only the trial judge had jurisdiction to award costs.

The court held that a motion judge has jurisdiction to award costs when an application is withdrawn against co-parties.

Finding that the applicant had a bona fide claim but acted unreasonably by persisting with it long after receiving disclosure, the court awarded costs to the Gandhis and the respondent.

The applicant mother sought an interim order to relocate with the parties' two children from Toronto to Ottawa due to a mandatory military posting.

The respondent father brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing British Columbia was the children's habitual residence.

The court found Ontario had jurisdiction as the children were habitually resident there pursuant to the parties' separation agreement.

The court granted the interim relocation, finding compelling circumstances, and ordered a flexible parenting schedule for the father.

The court declined to order child support, finding the father would suffer undue hardship due to the high costs of travel to exercise parenting time and his existing support obligations for two other children.

The respondent mother brought an ex parte motion under the Children's Law Reform Act seeking an order to enforce a final parenting order from the Supreme Court of India, which had previously been recognized by the Ontario court.

The applicant father had failed to return the child to India and had subsequently obtained an ex parte emergency protection order in Illinois granting him physical care of the child.

The court dismissed the mother's ex parte motion, finding it inappropriate to conduct a best interests analysis to choose between conflicting foreign orders without notice to the father.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the mother returning to court after her pending motions in Illinois were determined or upon providing notice to the father.

The applicant father brought a motion under the Hague Convention for the return of his three-year-old daughter to Florida.

The respondent mother had travelled to Toronto with the child in July 2021 and subsequently decided not to return.

The court applied the hybrid approach to determine the child's habitual residence immediately prior to the alleged wrongful retention in December 2021.

The court found that the focal point of the child's life was in Canada, where she had spent a significant portion of her life and where her primary caregiver and extended family resided.

As the child was habitually resident in Canada, the Hague Convention application was dismissed.

The applicant mother sought to relocate with the parties' three children to Cleveland, Ohio, to live with her new spouse.

The respondent father opposed the relocation.

The court considered the children's views and preferences, which strongly favoured the move, alongside the history of the parents' relationship, allegations of family violence, and the mother's restrictive approach to the father's parenting time.

Despite concerns about the mother's willingness to foster the children's relationship with the father, the court found that refusing the relocation would pose a significant risk to the children's best interests given their strong alignment with the mother.

The relocation was permitted, with a detailed parenting plan ordered to ensure the father's ongoing involvement.

The father was also ordered to pay child support, including a significant amount for section 7 expense arrears, while the mother's claim for spousal support was dismissed without prejudice.

The moving party mother brought a motion seeking an order for the responding party father to pay his proportionate share of the child's section 7 expenses, including daycare, private school tuition, and extracurricular activities, as well as a retroactive adjustment to child support.

The court granted the request for daycare expenses, finding them reasonable and necessary for the mother to work.

However, the court dismissed the claims for private school tuition, finding it unaffordable and unnecessary, and for extracurricular activities, finding them not extraordinary.

The request to retroactively adjust child support by setting aside a prior agreement was also dismissed.

The respondent (wife) brought a motion to enforce a consent order requiring the applicant (husband) to transfer his interest in a holding company and resign as officer/director, as a spousal tax-free capital rollover.

The husband refused to comply, arguing he was unaware he had signed a personal guarantee for the dental practice's line of credit and that the order should be set aside due to mutual or unilateral mistake, or unconscionability, as it did not address his release from the guarantee.

The court found no valid reason to set aside the order, noting the husband was represented by counsel, had an existing indemnity, and the wife had attempted to secure his release from the bank without success.

The court dismissed the husband's arguments of mistake and unconscionability, emphasizing that buyer's remorse is not a basis to disobey a consent order.

The motion to enforce the order was granted, compelling the husband to comply within seven days, regardless of the guarantee release, and ordering the wife to provide a further indemnity.

The applicant father sought to re-open an already decided appeal based on new text message evidence from the respondent mother, which he argued undermined her previous narrative regarding their child's residency in Dubai.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the application, reiterating that re-opening an appeal is a rare event reserved for cases of "very serious injustice." The court found the new evidence irrelevant to its original decision, which focused on the need to respect a U.K. Consent Custody Order and for the father to pursue the matter in the U.K. first, rather than making credibility findings.

Costs were awarded against the father.

The applicant mother unilaterally suspended the respondent father's access to their medically fragile child, Mileena, citing COVID-19 risks.

The respondent father brought a motion for compliance and broader relief, while the applicant mother brought a cross-motion.

The court previously ordered the mother to restore access.

In this decision, the court found the respondent father's current motion for compliance was no longer urgent because the applicant mother had restored access.

The court emphasized the parents' obligation to ensure access and protect the child from parental conflict, warning against future non-compliance and potential police enforcement.

An earlier order regarding COVID-19 precautions was amended by consent.