CITATION: Onuoha v. Onuoha, 2021 ONSC 3391
COURT FILE NO.: DC 579/20 DATE: 20210507
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
D.L. Corbett J.
B E T W E E N:
CHAMBERLIN CHIDI ONUOHA
Gloria Antwi, for the Respondent in Appeal
Applicant / Respondent in Appeal
- and -
IRENE ONUOHA
Ms Onuoha, self-represented
Respondent / Appellant in Appeal
Heard by Teleconference: May 6, 2021
ENDORSEMENT
D.L. Corbett J.:
[1] In paragraph 64 of this court’s decision on the appeal in this case, this court dismissed the appeal and directed as follows (2021 ONSC 2228):
When we advised the parties that the appeal was dismissed, we asked counsel to confer on a reasonable deadline for the children to be returned home. They agreed on fourteen days and we so ordered. We were advised that there could be complications because the children’s passports were still being held by federal officials. We gave and indicated that a member of this court would remain available to provide further directions, if any are required.
[2] On May 5, 2021, Mr Onuoha contacted the court, advising that the children have not yet been returned to Canada and requesting assistance from this court to complete arrangements for the children’s travel arrangements.
[3] Mr Onuoha has made arrangements with Ethiopian airlines for the children to fly home as unaccompanied minors. This was done because Ms Onuoha refused to advise whether she would travel back to Nigeria without the children.
[4] Mr Onuoha has made arrangements with Waterloo Regional Police for the children to be transported to Pearson Airport for their flight home.
[5] Mr Onuoha has made arrangements with Canada Border Services Agency for CBSA officers to meet the children at Pearson Airport, to transport the children to the departure gate, to provide the airline with the children’s passports, to ensure that the children board the plane and depart with it when it leaves, and to ensure that the children are met at Pearson if, for any reason, the plabe returns to Pearson rather than completing its flight to Africa.
[6] The children must obtain COVID tests and receive vaccinations against Yellow Fever prior to departure. Ms Onuoha has refused to cooperate to have the children inoculated and tested, as required. Based on Mr Onuoha’s information provided to the court, Ms Onuoha has failed to cooperate with any step to facilitate enforcement of this court’s order and the order of Madsen J. upheld by this court.
[7] Upon receipt of Mr Onuoha’s communication, this court directed an urgent teleconference and directed that Mr Onuoha’s agent counsel on the appeal, Ms Onuoha’s counsel of the appeal, and Ms Onuoha herself, attend the teleconference. I directed that counsel for the federal Department of Justice and the officer-in-charge at CBSA be invited but not required to attend the call.
Jurisdiction
[8] The appeal panel directed that a member of the appeal panel be available for “further directions” as may be required to implement the panel’s decision and the underlying order of Madsen J. The order I make today sets out “further directions” that are required to give effect to these decisions. Further, I am a Justice of the Superior Court of Justice, with inherent jurisdiction, and jurisdiction over the underlying dispute, coordinate with the jurisdiction of Madsen J. While it would be possible to refer the instant issues back to Madsen J. for directions, the timely, efficient and proportional way in which to proceed is for this court to provide the necessary directions, as was contemplated by the panel, as reflected in the passage quoted above.
[9] The context in which these issues arises is established by the findings of Madsen J. The children’s mother, the appellant Irene Onuoha, unlawfully abducted her children and brought them to Canada in violation of valid orders of the Nigerian courts. When this court announced its decision on appeal, it gave the parties time to consider the reasonable period for the extended deadline for the children to be returned to Nigeria, and the parties agreed to a deadline of fourteen days following the appeal decision. It has now been 65 days.
Ms Onuoha’s Position
[10] Ms Onuoha’s counsel on the appeal did attend this teleconference. They reported that they had not spoken with their client since late March and that they had not been able to reach her prior to this call. They had no instructions and were not retained for this call.
[11] Ms Onuoha explained to the court that she has been in great distress since the appeal decision in this case and has required medical attention to deal with her issues. It was evident from everything Ms Onuoha said during the call that she is in great distress and feels that she has been unfairly disbelieved and that the best interests of her children have been disregarded. She said that she has not been ignoring communications from Mr Onuoha’s lawyer but that the stress she has felt from these communications has led her to not open them or to deal with the issues in them: she has not refused to have her children tested or inoculated but she has just been unable to deal with these issues.
[12] The discussions went back and forth on these issues. On the one hand, Ms Onuoha did not want to be understood as defiant or as disobeying the court’s orders deliberately. She is under terrible stress and is having difficulty coping. On the other hand, at times it seemed quite clear that Ms Onuoha disputes the orders that have been made and that she does not wish to cooperate with them.
[13] Late in the conference, the court heard from Richard Odeleye, who is Ms Onuoha’s immigration counsel. I had not realized that Mr Odeleye was on the court, and I had interrupted him and had asked him not to speak when I was addressing Ms Onuoha because I had thought he was Mr Onuoha, not immigration counsel for Ms Onuoha. Once I realized my error, I did invite Mr Odeleye to make submissions. Those submissions were not on point. Mr Odeleye argued that the orders ought not be enforced because of the current difficulty in making arrangements because of COVID and impediments to the children leaving the country. These arguments fly in the face of authoritative orders made by Madsen J. and by the Divisional Court. The orders were not contingent or qualified. They will be enforced forthwith. The court will not consider collateral attacks on the orders.
[14] Both Ms Onuoha and Mr Odeleye argued that the children do not wish to leave. This issue was addressed and decided by Madsen J. and by the Divisional Court.
[15] The court was clear with Ms Onuoha about the following points:
a. The court understands that she does not agree with the decision that has been made in this case. That is understandable. But the decision has been made, the case is over, and both she and the children must move forward on the basis of the decision the court has made.
b. The children must obtain a COVID test and a Yellow Fever vaccination. If Ms Onuoha will not cooperate in these steps then the children will be forcibly taken to have these things done. It will be much harder on the children if things are done this way than if Ms Onuoha supports her children while these matters are attended to.
c. The children must get on the plane to fly back to Nigeria. Police enforcement has been arranged to ensure that this happens.
d. If there is any further obstruction in enforcement of the court’s orders then the court will order the children into the care of the Children’s Aid Society until they can be placed on a flight back to Nigeria.
[16] I discussed with Ms Onuoha the reality that she and the children currently face. The children are going back to Nigeria. She cannot prevent this, and she cannot delay it much longer. She can make this event traumatic and damaging for her children, or she can make it easier for them. It would be self-indulgent and, indeed, selfish for her to make this any more difficult for the children than it has to be.
Order
[17] It appears to the court that all necessary arrangements are in place other than arrangements for the children to receive their COVID test and Yellow Fever vaccination.
[18] Ms Antwi reports that Waterloo police will not take the children for the test and vaccination without an express order from this court they they do so.
[19] Order to go that Waterloo Regional Police take the two Onuoha children (as defined in the judgment of Madsen J.) to obtain a Yellow Fever Vaccination and to obtain a COVID-19. In the discretion of police, the children’s mother, Irene Onuoha, may accompany them to the inoculation and COVID test. It is open to Waterloo Regional Police to enlist the assistance of the Children’s Aid Society in implementing this direction.
[20] This endorsement is effective from the time that an unsigned copy of it is transmitted to the parties by email. A formal issued and entered order and a signed copy of the endorsement shall follow in due course.
___________________________ D.L. Corbett J.
Date of Release: May 6, 2021
COURT FILE NO.: DC 579/20 DATE: 20210507
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
D.L. Corbett J.
BETWEEN:
Chamberlin Chidi Onuoha Applicant / Respondent in Appeal
– and –
Irene Onuoha Respondent / Appellant in Appeal
ENDORSEMENT
D.L. Corbett J.
Date of Release: May 6, 2021