Justin Javid Mohammed

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' one-year-old child to Pennsylvania.

The respondent mother had unilaterally removed the child to Ontario, arguing that Pennsylvania was not the child's habitual residence, that the father had acquiesced to the move, and that returning would expose the child to a grave risk of harm due to domestic violence.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was Pennsylvania, the father did not acquiesce, and the mother failed to establish that Pennsylvania courts could not protect her from the alleged harm.

The application was granted and the child was ordered returned to Pennsylvania.

The applicant brought a motion for contempt and amendments to the parenting schedule, alleging the respondent breached a final order and communicated abusively.

The respondent alleged the applicant breached the order and sought a week-about schedule.

The court found the breaches stemmed from a misunderstanding of the schedule's implementation and declined to find contempt, though it noted the respondent's communications were at times derogatory.

The parties consented to a 'swear jar' order.

The court clarified the existing schedule rather than amending it.

As success was mixed and judicial intervention was necessary, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to serve and file a Notice for Leave to Appeal a costs endorsement.

The appellant had emailed the notice to the respondents' counsel on the 15th day, but the court office required personal service or an acknowledgment of receipt, which the respondents' counsel delayed providing.

The respondents' counsel then unreasonably refused to consent to late filing, forcing the motion.

The court granted the extension and awarded $1,000 in costs to the appellant, criticizing the respondents' counsel for their 'totally ridiculous response'.