2 total
Ontario retained parenting jurisdiction over a child habitually resident here.
On a cross-border parenting jurisdiction motion involving parallel proceedings in Ontario and the Navajo Nation Family Court, the court held that the child was habitually resident in Ontario at the commencement of the Ontario application under s. 22 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.
Applying the statutory framework explained in Dunmore, the court found the child was residing in Ontario with the father's consent or implied consent and that Ontario had become the child's home rather than a temporary visit.
The court declined to refuse jurisdiction under s. 25, notwithstanding the advanced state of the foreign proceeding and the child's cultural ties to the Navajo Nation, because substantial evidence concerning best interests was in Ontario and neither parent sought the child's removal from Ontario.
The father's jurisdiction motion was dismissed.
The court rejected the applicant's claim of $1.8 million in family loans due to lack of credible evidence and ordered her to pay equalization and post-separation adjustments.
This decision addresses the division of property, equalization, and post-separation adjustments following the breakdown of marriage between Oludayo Olowookere and Arthur Temitope Olowookere.
The court determined the date of separation, assessed the credibility and sufficiency of evidence regarding alleged family loans, and calculated equalization and post-separation adjustments.
The court found insufficient evidence to support the existence of the claimed loans and provided detailed reasons for the equalization and adjustment calculations, ultimately ordering specific payments and dismissing the occupation rent claim.
