This motion addressed whether a final order concerning child parenting and jurisdiction should be set aside due to lack of notice to the paternal grandmother, who had de facto care and control of the child in India.
The court set aside the parenting-related provisions of the final order, finding that the paternal grandmother, as a person with care and control, should have been named as a party and received notice.
However, the court affirmed Ontario's jurisdiction over the parenting dispute, determining the child's habitual residence remained in Ontario at the commencement of the original application and that Ontario was the more appropriate forum under the "balance of convenience" test, despite the child residing in India.