Mary A. Fraser

The applicant mother sought the return of her four-year-old child to Virginia under the Hague Convention, alleging wrongful retention by the respondent father in Ontario.

The father conceded the retention was technically wrongful but argued the application was brought more than a year after the retention and the child was 'now settled' in Ontario under Article 12.

The court found the child had been living exclusively with the father for over two years in a stable environment, contrasting with the mother's history of substance abuse and child protection involvement.

The court concluded the child was settled in her new environment and dismissed the application for return.

The respondent brought a motion seeking an order to relocate the child's residence to Kingston, Ontario, to accept a teaching contract.

The applicant consented to the move but disputed the adjusted access schedule.

The court granted the respondent's request to move the child on consent and established a temporary access schedule for the applicant, contingent on whether the applicant also relocated to Kingston.

The court declined to address additional motions filed by both parties, including a request to vary interim child support, deeming them speculative and premature given the impending trial.

The applicant sought an order vesting title of the matrimonial home, owned by the respondent, to satisfy an unpaid equalization payment and costs from a prior trial.

The respondent was noted in default.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion for summary judgment, finding that it lacked jurisdiction under section 9 of the Family Law Act because the original application under section 7 was "spent" after a final judgment.

Furthermore, the matter was deemed res judicata, as the trial judge had previously declined to exercise powers under section 9, and the applicant could not re-litigate issues that could have been raised.

The respondent brought a motion for a temporary order granting her sole custody or, alternatively, access to the children.

The applicant had previously obtained an ex parte order for sole custody due to concerns about the respondent's mental health and a potential relocation.

The court maintained the applicant's temporary custody but found insufficient evidence to justify continued supervised access, particularly given its limited availability and negative impact on the children's relationship with the respondent.

The court ordered a phased expansion of unsupervised access for the respondent, while prohibiting her from removing the children from Renfrew County.