Wiri Kapurura

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.

Following a family law trial concerning a school-aged child, the court determined parenting, education, and child support issues under the Children’s Law Reform Act and the Child Support Guidelines.

The court found that both parents loved the child and both had committed forms of family violence, but concluded that the child required greater school-week stability and that the father had demonstrated stronger engagement with the child’s attendance and school functioning.

The existing 2-2-3 shared parenting regime was found not to be in the child’s best interests, although the mother’s time still met the s. 9 shared-parenting threshold when calculated hourly.

The court ordered primary residence with the father during the school year, preserved the child’s attendance at private school, prohibited homeschooling, imposed detailed decision-making and communication terms, imputed income to the mother from October 1, 2025, and ordered set-off child support together with proportionate section 7 contributions.