James Stengel

The applicant's contempt motion against the respondent was dismissed.

The court found the respondent's actions regarding missed access were due to concerns for the child's well-being, not contempt.

As the successful party, the respondent was awarded substantial indemnity costs, fixed at $8,857, payable by the applicant.

The applicant's claim for costs was dismissed.

This appeal addressed habitual residence under Article 3 of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction after a parent retained children in Canada beyond a time-limited consent period.

The Court adopted a hybrid, multi-factor approach that evaluates all relevant circumstances, including but not limited to parental intent and the child's links to each state.

The Court also endorsed a non-technical approach to Article 13(2), requiring proof of sufficient maturity and a genuine objection before discretion is exercised.

Although the matter was moot, the appeal was resolved to clarify national law and emphasize expeditious handling of return proceedings.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer brought a motion to stay an order requiring a mother to return her two children to Germany pursuant to the Hague Convention, pending an anticipated application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The father opposed the stay and challenged the OCL's standing.

The court assumed standing but dismissed the stay motion, finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm to the children, and that the balance of convenience favoured their prompt return to Germany to have custody determined in their habitual residence.

On a family law appeal, the appellant challenged an order requiring repayment of spousal support overpayments for two years over a 24-month period, arguing the motion judge misinterpreted the separation agreement and made a palpable and overriding error.

The court held the agreement set out a mechanism for calculating overpayments but not for repayment, and that the parties' historical practice of adjusting one year of overpayment over the following year did not mandate a different result when three years of overpayments had accumulated.

Relying on the deferential appellate standard of review and the enforcement provisions of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, the court found the Ontario Court of Justice had jurisdiction and discretion to craft a reasonable repayment order.

The appeal was dismissed.