Farrah Hudani

The father brought an application under s. 40 of the Children's Law Reform Act (CLRA) seeking the return of their child to Dubai, claiming wrongful retention in Ontario.

The application judge ordered the child's return to Dubai, erroneously applying the Hague Convention framework despite the UAE not being a signatory.

The Court of Appeal found this was an error, as s. 40 CLRA is distinct from the Hague Convention, particularly regarding the concept of "habitual residence" and the court's broad discretionary powers.

The appeal was allowed, the lower order set aside, and the father's application stayed on condition he commence proceedings in the UK, where a prior consent custody order existed.

The applicant father brought an urgent, ex parte motion for a temporary order preventing the respondent mother from removing their six-year-old daughter from the Greater Toronto Area and requiring the surrender of the child's passport.

The mother had recently removed the child from Dubai to Lebanon, and then to Canada, without the father's consent.

The court found jurisdiction under section 40 of the Children's Law Reform Act, concluding the child was wrongfully removed to Ontario and that a temporary non-removal order was in the child's best interests to prevent further abduction to a non-Hague Convention country.

The parties separated and the husband obtained a divorce and corollary relief in Singapore.

The wife commenced a competing proceeding for divorce and corollary relief in Ontario.

On a motion to determine jurisdiction, the court held that the Singapore divorce, equalization, and spousal support orders were valid and Ontario lacked jurisdiction to review them.

However, the court found that Ontario had jurisdiction over custody, access, and child support, as the children were habitually resident in Ontario and had a real and substantial connection to the province.

The mother sought a stay of an order requiring the return of two young children to their habitual residence in Tennessee, United States, pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The mother had removed the children from Tennessee to Ontario without the father's consent.

The application judge found the children's habitual residence was Tennessee and that return would not expose them to grave harm.

The mother could not return to the United States due to immigration restrictions, while the father had a criminal record preventing entry to Canada.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for a stay, finding no serious question to be tried on appeal, no irreparable harm to the children, and that the balance of convenience favoured prompt return to the jurisdiction of habitual residence.

The applicant mother, Andrea Bolla, brought an application for custody in Ontario after wrongfully removing her two children from Botswana, where they habitually resided with the respondent father, Alias Swart.

The central issue was whether the Ontario court should accept jurisdiction, which required the applicant to establish a risk of "serious harm" to the children if returned to Botswana under s. 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court found the applicant's claims of abuse, corruption in the Botswana legal system, and the children's anxiety to be unsubstantiated or insufficient to meet the high threshold of "serious harm." The court ordered the children's return to Botswana for custody proceedings to continue there, with undertakings from the father to mitigate short-term harm.