Katerina Svozilkova

The applicant mother appealed an order directing the return of her infant son to New York under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and sought an urgent stay of that order pending appeal.

The motion judge refused the requested stay, finding that the mother did not meet the onus to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience did not favour her.

The court emphasized the Hague Convention's mandate for prompt return and that delays frustrate its purpose.

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

The respondent mother had removed the child to Ontario without the father's knowledge or consent.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was New York State and that the father was exercising his custody rights at the time of removal.

The mother opposed the return, alleging domestic violence and substance abuse by the father, arguing that returning the child would pose a grave risk of harm under Article 13(b).

The court held that the mother failed to meet the high threshold required to establish a grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation.

The application was granted, and the child was ordered to be returned to New York State, subject to certain undertakings by the father.

The applicant sought to enforce a settlement agreement, claiming he accepted an offer to settle attached to the respondent's settlement conference brief.

The respondent opposed, arguing the offer was outdated and implicitly withdrawn by a subsequent, less favorable offer.

The court found that while offers attached to settlement briefs are enforceable, the later offer, which left child support unresolved, implicitly withdrew the earlier, more comprehensive offer.

Consequently, the applicant's acceptance of the original offer did not form a binding contract, and his motion was dismissed.