Sarah A. Weisman

The applicant mother sought the return of her two children to the Dominican Republic under the Hague Convention after the respondent father retained them in Ontario following a summer visit.

The father opposed the return, citing exceptions under Article 13(b) (grave risk of harm) and Article 13(2) (child's objection).

The court found that the children had suffered severe physical and psychological abuse while in the mother's care, establishing a grave risk of harm if returned.

The 14-year-old child strongly objected to returning, and separating the 8-year-old from his sister would create an intolerable situation.

The court also admitted fresh evidence showing the mother attempted to abduct the younger child during the proceedings.

The application was dismissed, and Ontario assumed jurisdiction over parenting.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of a Hague Convention application.

The respondent (mother) sought over $215,000 in costs after successfully defending the application.

The court reviewed the principles of costs, including reasonableness and the parties' financial circumstances.

Despite the respondent's full success on the underlying application and a rejected settlement offer, the court significantly reduced the requested costs to $50,761.01.

The decision emphasizes that costs awards must be proportionate and subject to the reasonable expectations of the parties, especially given their modest financial circumstances, and that success is not divided when pre-requisite findings are made but the ultimate relief sought is denied.

The applicant father sought the immediate return of the child to Ohio, USA, under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The respondent mother opposed, relying on Article 13(b) (grave risk of harm) and Article 13(2) (child's objection).

The court found that the child was habitually resident in Ohio and wrongfully removed.

However, the court determined that both Article 13(b) and Article 13(2) exceptions applied, citing the father's controlling and abusive behavior, the child's forced performance of demeaning chores, the presence of loaded weapons, and the child's strong, independent objection to returning.

The application for the child's return was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses an urgency motion brought by the respondent father during the COVID-19 pandemic court suspension.

The father sought to set aside custody and restraining orders concerning the three oldest children (over 18) and to vary child support due to alleged reduced income and the children no longer being "children of the marriage." The court found the matter met the criteria for urgency as it involved a restraining order and potentially dire financial circumstances, both explicitly mentioned in the Chief Justice's Notice to the Profession.

The motion was allowed to proceed, limited to the issues of the restraining order for the older children, ongoing child support, and arrears.

The applicant mother unilaterally suspended the respondent father's access to their medically fragile child, Mileena, citing COVID-19 risks.

The respondent father brought a motion for compliance and broader relief, while the applicant mother brought a cross-motion.

The court previously ordered the mother to restore access.

In this decision, the court found the respondent father's current motion for compliance was no longer urgent because the applicant mother had restored access.

The court emphasized the parents' obligation to ensure access and protect the child from parental conflict, warning against future non-compliance and potential police enforcement.

An earlier order regarding COVID-19 precautions was amended by consent.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for the immediate return and interim sole custody of her two young children, alleging the respondent father had withheld them since April 4, 2020.

The mother raised serious concerns about the father's substance abuse, erratic behavior, and a video showing him brandishing a gun.

Despite proper service and court directives, the respondent father failed to participate in the proceedings.

The court, proceeding in the father's absence, found the matter urgent, granted interim sole custody to the mother, ordered the immediate return of the children, and included police enforcement clauses due to the serious safety concerns.

Other non-urgent claims, such as drug testing, paternity declaration, and costs, were adjourned to a case conference.

The applicant mother unilaterally ceased the child's access to the respondent father, citing COVID-19 concerns, contrary to existing court orders.

The respondent father brought a motion to reinstate access and address primary residence.

This endorsement addresses the urgency of the respondent's motion.

The court found the matter urgent, involving the child's well-being and alleged wrongful retention, and allowed the motion to proceed.

The court noted that the mother's non-compliance with clear court orders raised serious concerns about her appropriateness as the primary residence parent.

Procedural orders were issued for the substantive motion.

This decision addresses costs following a motion brought by the applicant mother concerning child access for their medically fragile child amidst COVID-19 risks.

The motion, while unsuccessful in terminating the respondent father's face-to-face contact, served to highlight both parents' unreasonable conduct and failure to prioritize the child's best interests.

The court found both parties exposed the child to unnecessary risks and used affidavits for venting frustrations.

Applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court awarded the respondent father $1,000 in all-inclusive costs, significantly less than requested, due to his own unreasonable behaviour and the divided success of the motion.

The applicant mother sought to suspend the respondent father's access to their medically fragile child for three weeks due to the child's unusually high risk from the Covid-19 virus.

The respondent father cross-moved to continue access.

The court found both parents had exposed the child to unnecessary risks and failed to make full disclosure.

Balancing the child's best interests, including the need for both parents' support during disorienting times, against the risks of Covid-19, the court dismissed the mother's motion and ordered that the existing access schedule continue with strict safety protocols for both parents and during transportation.

A motion was brought by C. M. to be added as a respondent to a custody application brought by the paternal grandmother against the child's parents.

The moving party sought party status following the release of a child psychiatrist's report containing allegations of sexual abuse by the moving party.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party was not a necessary party to the proceeding.

The court held that the dispute between the applicant and respondents could be adjudicated without the moving party as a party, and that any relevant evidence could be presented through witness testimony.

The court emphasized that adding a party solely to protect reputation and not to claim substantive relief would divert focus from the paramount consideration of the best interests of the child.