MacPherson J.

The applicant mother sought the return of her five-year-old daughter to China, alleging the respondent father wrongfully retained the child in Ontario after a visit.

The father argued the child's habitual residence was Ontario, or alternatively, that returning the child to China would cause serious harm.

Applying the hybrid approach, the court determined the child's habitual residence remained China.

The court found the father failed to establish that the child would suffer serious harm if returned.

The court declined to assume jurisdiction and ordered the immediate return of the child to China.

The mother brought a motion to change a 2012 joint custody order, seeking sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the 15-year-old child.

The child had experienced severe mental health struggles, including suicide attempts, and expressed a strong desire not to see the father due to his anger and controlling behaviour.

The father alleged parental alienation by the mother.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined it was in the child's best interests to grant the mother sole decision-making responsibility.

The father's parenting time was ordered to occur only if initiated by the child, and he was prohibited from accessing the child's health and educational records without her consent.

The applicant brought an urgent motion seeking to transfer $59,953 from the respondent's locked-in retirement account (LIRA) to satisfy a temporary spousal support order made under the Divorce Act.

The respondent's LIRA was not currently 'in pay'.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the Pension Benefits Act permits garnishment of up to half of pension payments once they are 'in pay', there is no statutory authority to order the transfer or garnishment of funds from an unlocked LIRA that is not currently paying out funds.

Following competing family law motions regarding interim spousal support, business valuation, and control of corporate bank accounts, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant had partial success, obtaining interim spousal support and an order for a business valuation, while the respondent succeeded on the issue of exclusive control of the business bank account.

Applying Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules and the principle that costs should be fair and reasonable rather than strictly mathematical, the court determined that the applicant was the overall successful party.

However, the amount sought was excessive and there had been divided success.

Costs were therefore fixed at a reduced amount.