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.
