Ghina Al-Sewaidi

The respondent father brought a motion to change child support provisions, seeking to stay ongoing child support and section 7 expenses and to recalculate arrears based on his claimed inability to pay.

The father argued that Gladue principles should apply to the motion to change, citing his experiences as an Indigenous man and the impact of systemic inequalities on his ability to pay.

The court rejected the application of Gladue principles to child support motions but acknowledged the relevance of considering systemic factors affecting Indigenous persons.

The court found the father had not discharged his onus to establish a material change in circumstances warranting a reduction in the imputed income of $30,000 per annum.

However, the court granted relief regarding section 7 expenses due to lack of disclosure and adjusted arrears accordingly.

Two unmarried parents of a two-year-old child each brought motions for temporary custody following their separation.

The mother left the family home with the child and went to a shelter for abused women.

The father subsequently retained the child without the mother's consent and commenced a custody application.

The court rejected the father's request for equal time-sharing and instead awarded temporary custody to the mother, with the father receiving alternate weekend access and two weekday evening visits per week.

The court imposed parenting rules governing decision-making, removal of the child from the region, daycare attendance, medical care, and substance use restrictions.

The father brought a contempt motion after the mother permanently relocated with their child to New Brunswick in violation of a non-removal court order.

The mother responded with a motion to change seeking permission to relocate, and the father brought a cross-motion to change seeking custody or defined access terms.

The court applied the framework from Gordon v. Goertz and found a material change in circumstances.

After considering all relevant factors, the court determined that the child's best interests lay with remaining in New Brunswick with the mother, who had established a stable life with family support.

The court granted the mother's motion to change, deleted the non-removal clause, and established reasonable access terms for the father.

Although the mother was found in contempt for violating the court order, the court declined to impose jail time or a fine, instead denying costs to the successful party as a penalty for her unilateral action.

The applicant sought an order under the Hague Convention for the return of three children to Australia, alleging they were wrongfully retained in Ontario by the respondent.

The court examined habitual residence, consent, the one-year limitation under Article 12, and the grave risk of harm defence under Article 13(b).

It found that the family had a settled intention to reside in Australia and that the children's habitual residence remained Australia despite a temporary trip to Canada.

The respondent’s retention of the children after commencing custody proceedings in Ontario constituted wrongful detention, and no grave risk of harm was established.

The court ordered the children returned to Australia.