Justice M. B. Pawagi

Father sought return of two children (ages 10 and 14) under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The children were habitually resident in Michigan with the father and were retained in Ontario by the mother during a summer access visit.

The mother and counsel for the children opposed return, citing the children's objections and grave risk of harm.

The court found that the older child's objection was substantial and based on serious psychological and educational factors related to being a transgender youth in Michigan, meeting the Article 13 exception to mandatory return.

The younger child's objection was found to be a mere preference and did not meet the threshold.

The court ordered the younger child returned to Michigan and dismissed the application with respect to the older child.

The Children's Aid Society sought a secure treatment order for a 15-year-old child with Autism Spectrum Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

The child had a history of aggressive behaviour and multiple failed placements.

The court found all six statutory criteria under section 164(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 were met and committed the child to a 180-day secure treatment program at Syl Apps Youth Centre.

The decision is notable for the court's serious concerns about the child's prior placement at Reflections, where the child was confined to a basement apartment for nearly three months without access to fresh air or outdoor activity.

A motion to change a custody order in a family law matter involving a ten-year-old child.

The applicant sought to change the existing joint custody arrangement (with primary residence to the respondent) to sole custody of himself.

The child had been placed in temporary sole custody of the applicant in May 2011 but ran away to her mother's residence in July 2012.

The court found that the respondent had demonstrated an inability to support the child's relationship with the applicant and had engaged in parental alienation despite therapeutic interventions.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant with no access to the respondent, finding this to be in the child's best interests.