3 total
The Ontario court retained jurisdiction over a parenting dispute after the mother unilaterally moved the children to British Columbia.
The Applicant brought a motion for an interim parenting order.
The Respondent challenged the Ontario court's jurisdiction, asserting that British Columbia was the proper forum after she moved there with the children.
The court determined that the children's habitual residence remained in Ontario at the commencement of the application, as their removal was without the Applicant's consent or acquiescence, and there was no undue delay in commencing proceedings.
The court rejected the Respondent's argument that a British Columbia protection order established habitual residence there.
Applying the balance of convenience test under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court concluded that Ontario was the more appropriate forum to exercise jurisdiction.
Crown wardship ordered for special needs child; father's plan for supervision order rejected.
The Children's Aid Society brought a protection application seeking Crown wardship of a five-year-old child with severe behavioural and special needs.
The mother did not participate in the trial.
The father, who had an extensive criminal record and had been absent for most of the child's life, sought placement of the child in his care under a supervision order.
The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's inability to manage the child's extreme aggressive behaviours.
The court rejected the father's plan, finding he lacked insight into the child's complex needs and had failed to complete recommended programs in a timely manner.
The child was made a Crown ward with supervised access granted to the father.
Primary residence changed to mother during school week to reduce child's travel time after father's relocation.
The mother brought a motion to change a custody and access order after the father unilaterally moved to a rural property, significantly increasing the child's travel time to school and extracurricular activities.
The court found a material change in circumstances.
While both parents were capable, the court determined it was in the child's best interests to reside primarily with the mother in London during the school week to reduce travel time and maintain community ties, with the father having primary care during the summer.
