2 total
The court ordered the return of a child after the mother unilaterally relocated prior to trial.
The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking that the parties' seven-year-old daughter reside with him and continue attending school in Waterloo, Ontario.
The applicant mother brought a cross-motion seeking to relocate the child to Manitoulin Island where she had already moved without court authorization.
The court applied the principles from Gordon v. Goertz and the interim mobility test from Plumley v. Plumley.
Finding that the mother had acted precipitously and contrary to the child's best interests by relocating without seeking a court order first, and that custody remained undetermined, the court dismissed the mother's motion and ordered the child returned to the father's care in Waterloo Region pending trial.
Successful parent received $6000 costs in the cause.
This was a family law costs endorsement following a motion concerning the newborn child's habitual residence and return to Ontario.
The court held that the applicant had been entirely successful on an all-or-nothing motion and found the respondent's unilateral removal of the child to Newfoundland was precipitous, unilateral and unreasonable.
Applying the family costs framework, the court also considered the respondent's apparent limited means and the potential effect of a costs order on the child's care.
Costs of $6000 inclusive were awarded to the applicant, but in the cause.
