Selim James Tela Levy

The respondents (husband and his parents) sought the release of net proceeds from the sale of a property, which were held in trust under a preservation order.

They initially sought summary judgment on property ownership.

The applicant (wife) opposed, arguing the funds should remain in trust to secure a potential equalization payment.

The court declined summary judgment, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding property ownership.

Applying the test for preservation orders under section 12 of the Family Law Act, the court found a strong likelihood of an equalization payment owed by the husband and concerns about asset dissipation.

The court ordered the proceeds to remain in trust, concluding that the respondents would not suffer irreparable harm.

The applicant father sought an order for the return of their 10-year-old son to Renfrew County, primary residence with him, and enrollment in a local school, along with temporary child support.

The respondent mother had unilaterally relocated the child to Welland and sought to maintain this relocation.

The court, applying the Divorce Act, found a material change in circumstances due to the relocation.

Despite the burden of proof being on the father to show the relocation was not in the child's best interests (due to the prior primary residence arrangement), the court found that the relocation caused significant disruption to the child's life, including reduced contact with the father and extended family, loss of school and friends, and the child's expressed wish to be closer to his father.

The mother failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the move or demonstrate that an equivalent educational program was unavailable locally.

The mother brought an urgent motion to determine the children's schooling for the 2020-2021 academic year during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The father sought to have the children continue with virtual learning, while the mother requested they attend a French-language school in person.

The court found no medical reason to keep the children home and determined that in-person learning at a public French-language school was in their best interests, given their academic needs, language proficiency, and the mother's logistical constraints.

This decision addresses costs following an application under the Hague Convention for the return of two children to Hong Kong.

The applicant, Mr. Habimana, was successful in obtaining an order for the children's return, as the respondent, Ms. Mukundwa, failed to establish a risk of harm.

The court found Ms. Mukundwa's conduct in removing the children to be unreasonable.

Neither party's offers to settle triggered automatic cost rules.

Considering the complexity, importance of the issues, and the parties' conduct, the court awarded Mr. Habimana $25,000 in costs, inclusive of legal fees incurred in Hong Kong and Canada, and transportation costs for the children and their mother's return.

The applicant father sought the return of his two sons to Hong Kong under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The respondent mother contested, raising the Article 13(b) defense of grave risk of harm and an intolerable situation due to alleged spousal abuse and uncertain immigration status.

The court found that the mother did not meet the high threshold for the grave risk defense, noting no evidence of physical or psychological abuse of the children and that Hong Kong courts could address family law issues.

The court ordered the children's forthwith return to Hong Kong, subject to several undertakings by the father to ensure the mother and children's safe return and stability.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa (Society) brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child, D.G., was in need of protection due to the mother's mental health and substance abuse issues, and for an order granting sole legal custody to the father with discretionary access for the mother.

The father consented to the motion, while the mother, self-represented, opposed it, arguing the father also had issues and requesting an adjournment to complete a treatment program.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court determined that the child was in need of protection under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, placed the child in the sole legal custody of the father as the least intrusive disposition, and ordered that the mother's access be at the father's discretion, to be supervised, given her ongoing struggles and inconsistent visits.

The court also permitted the father to obtain a passport for the child and travel without the mother's consent, subject to providing an itinerary.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection and an order granting custody to the mother with supervised access for the father.

The father opposed the motion, arguing he should be allowed to defend a pending criminal trial first and that there were genuine issues of credibility requiring a trial.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the father failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the Society's case.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the children in need of protection due to exposure to parental conflict, and ordered custody to the mother with supervised access for the father.

Following a successful application under the Hague Convention ordering the return of the parties' child to Brazil, the applicant father sought costs of $13,500.

The respondent mother argued costs should be limited to $3,500.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, finding the father's legal fees and disbursements, including a Voice of the Child Report, to be largely reasonable.

The court fixed costs payable by the mother to the father at $9,960.18 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant father sought the return of his 12-year-old child to Brazil under the Hague Convention, alleging wrongful retention by the respondent mother in Ontario.

The mother conceded the retention was wrongful but raised defences under Article 13, arguing a grave risk of harm and that the child objected to returning.

The court found insufficient evidence of a grave risk of physical or psychological harm.

While acknowledging the child was mature and objected to returning, the court concluded the child's reasons were not substantial enough to meet the exceptional circumstances required to override the mandatory return provisions.

The application was granted and the child was ordered returned to Brazil.