Harminder Dhillon

The Mother brought a motion to transfer the Father's divorce proceeding from Ontario to British Columbia, arguing that B.C. was the children's most substantial connection.

Despite Ontario having prima facie jurisdiction, the court exercised its discretion under s. 6(1) of the Divorce Act to transfer the entire proceeding to B.C. The court found it was in the children's best interests to remain in B.C., considering their current residence, schooling, extended family support, and the Father's acquiescence to their relocation.

The Father's legal steps to return the children to Ontario and obtain custody were deemed largely tactical.

Maternal grandparents brought a motion for temporary access to their granddaughter following a three-year period of living together in the grandparents' home.

The mother obtained sole custody in 2015 and moved out in February 2017, thereafter denying the grandparents contact.

The grandparents sought every other weekend access or, alternatively, supervised access through a supervised access center.

The mother opposed the motion entirely.

The court found the mother's decision to deny access was reasonable, as the relationship between the grandparents and mother was poisoned by a history of control, interference, and boundary violations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the child had been negatively impacted by the separation and that the grandparents' motivation was rooted in control rather than the child's best interests.

Appeal of a motion judge's order granting sole custody to the father in a child custody dispute.

The mother had taken the 13-year-old son to India in 2013 under the guise of visiting her ill mother and did not return him despite a court order.

The motion judge found Ontario had jurisdiction based on the child's habitual residence and granted the father sole custody.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the father had attorned to the Indian courts by seeking a final custody order based on Indian law, and therefore Ontario should have declined jurisdiction.

The Court also found that the motion judge erred by making a final custody order without considering the best interests of the child factors required by statute.