Michael J. Ruhl

The father brought a motion seeking to enforce the terms of a temporary order regarding unsupervised access and to determine reasonable section 7 expenses for the child's special needs.

The mother opposed the transition to unsupervised access and sought confirmation of various extraordinary expenses including speech therapy, occupational therapy, tutoring, after-school care, and summer camps.

The court determined which expenses were reasonable and necessary in relation to the child's best interests and the parties' means, fixed a monthly contribution amount for section 7 expenses, and ordered the commencement of unsupervised access.

The applicant father sought an interim order allowing the children to travel from Germany to Ontario, pending a determination of whether the Ontario court had jurisdiction over custody and access under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The applicant argued the court could make the order under s. 40 of the CLRA or its parens patriae jurisdiction.

The court held that s. 40 only applies after a court has determined it lacks jurisdiction, not before.

The court also declined to exercise parens patriae jurisdiction, finding no situation of necessity.

The request was dismissed pending the jurisdictional hearing.

The parties, who were married for less than a year, disputed the ownership of a dog named Casper.

The responding party commenced an application for the return of the dog but subsequently removed the dog from the moving party's home without his consent.

The moving party brought a motion for the interim return of the dog.

The court condemned the responding party's use of 'self-help' while simultaneously seeking the court's assistance.

The court ordered the interim return of the dog to the moving party pending a final determination of ownership and directed the parties to schedule a settlement/trial management conference.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention seeking the return of the parties' child to Israel.

The parties had moved from Israel to Ontario so the respondent mother could attend a veterinary residency program.

They separated shortly after arriving when the respondent discovered the applicant using dating websites.

The court found that despite the short duration of their stay before separation, the parties had established a settled intention to reside in Ontario for at least three years.

Consequently, the child's habitual residence was Ontario, and the Hague Convention application was dismissed.

The appellant father appealed a Superior Court of Justice order dismissing his claim for custody and continuing an existing Ontario Court of Justice custody order with a scheduled review.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on jurisdictional grounds, finding that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to vary the existing Ontario Court of Justice order.

The proper procedure would have been a motion to change in the Ontario Court of Justice, followed by a request for consolidation and transfer.

The Court of Appeal declined to use its powers under the Courts of Justice Act to retroactively cure the jurisdictional defect through a double transfer.

Although the appeal was allowed on jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal noted that the trial judge did not err in his substantive analysis of the children's best interests or in ordering a review.

The original Ontario Court of Justice order continues to govern.