2 total
Habitual residence turns on where the child was at home, not parental intention.
This appeal concerned whether Ontario courts had jurisdiction under s. 22 of the Children’s Law Reform Act to decide parenting issues for a child whose parents had lived in multiple countries.
The majority held that habitual residence under s. 22 turns on where the child resided and was at home at the prescribed time, not on shared parental settled intention.
Applying that approach, the Court found no basis to disturb the motion judge’s conclusion that the child was habitually resident in Ontario when the application commenced.
A dissent would have applied a parental intention approach and found habitual residence in Oman.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
The court returned four children to their mother under a supervision order with strict conditions.
A temporary care and custody motion under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act concerning four children with developmental, emotional, medical and educational needs.
The Children's Aid Society sought to maintain custody of the children after they were brought into care on December 18, 2019, due to protection concerns arising from the father's mental health crisis, controlling behaviour, and refusal to cooperate with services.
The mother, who had been subject to the father's domination, sought the return of the children.
The court found that while protection concerns existed, a supervision order placing the children with the mother was appropriate, provided she lived separately from the father and his contact with the children was supervised by the CAS.
