Gillian Bookman

The court granted an application under the Hague Convention for the return of a child wrongfully removed from Michigan to Ontario by her mother.

The judge found that Michigan was the child’s habitual residence immediately prior to removal, rejecting the argument that the child’s ties to her primary caregiver in Ontario were determinative.

The court also found that the mother had not established a grave risk of harm or intolerable situation if the child were returned, and ordered the child’s return to Michigan with undertakings to protect the mother and child’s interests pending further proceedings in Michigan.

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.

On appeal from a Superior Court decision dismissing an application under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The appellant sought the return of four children to Germany, arguing they were habitually resident there.

The respondent opposed the application, arguing the children were habitually resident in Ontario.

The application judge found the children were habitually resident in Ontario and dismissed the application.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming the application of the hybrid model for determining habitual residence established in Office of the Children's Lawyer v. Balev.

The court rejected all grounds of appeal, including allegations of inadequate reasons, misapplication of the hybrid model, factual errors, and procedural errors regarding the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

This appeal addressed habitual residence under Article 3 of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction after a parent retained children in Canada beyond a time-limited consent period.

The Court adopted a hybrid, multi-factor approach that evaluates all relevant circumstances, including but not limited to parental intent and the child's links to each state.

The Court also endorsed a non-technical approach to Article 13(2), requiring proof of sufficient maturity and a genuine objection before discretion is exercised.

Although the matter was moot, the appeal was resolved to clarify national law and emphasize expeditious handling of return proceedings.

This case involved two motions within a Hague Convention application concerning the wrongful removal of four children from the Netherlands to Canada by the respondent mother.

The applicant father sought the children's return and parenting time, while the respondent sought an order for the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) to investigate.

The court dismissed the respondent's OCL motion, emphasizing the Hague Convention's principle of prompt return and the inappropriateness of using an OCL investigation to delay proceedings or ascertain children's views in this context.

The court found that wrongful removal was established based on a Dutch court order confirming joint parental authority and habitual residence in the Netherlands, and the respondent's misrepresentation of her intent to return.

The applicant's motion for parenting time was granted, establishing a schedule for video calls.

Costs were awarded to the applicant, with payment deferred to the judge hearing the main application.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, contribution to section 7 expenses, and a non-dissipation order.

The court found a significant disparity in the evidence regarding the respondent's income and imputed his income at $300,000 for interim purposes.

The respondent was ordered to pay interim child support of $2,373 per month, interim spousal support of $8,894 per month, and outstanding section 7 expenses for private school tuition and orthodontistry.

The court also granted a non-dissipation order prohibiting the respondent from disposing of properties and requiring him to preserve assets.