The applicant father brought a motion concerning jurisdiction and the habitual residence of an infant after the respondent mother unilaterally removed the child from Ontario to Newfoundland and Labrador.
The court considered s.22 of the Children’s Law Reform Act and authorities addressing whether a parent can change a child’s habitual residence without the other parent’s consent.
The court rejected the respondent’s claim that the relocation had been planned and found the removal was unilateral and without consent or acquiescence.
Applying the principle that a parent cannot unilaterally alter a child’s habitual residence, the court held the child remained habitually resident in Ontario.
Jurisdiction was accepted and the respondent was ordered to return the child to Ontario pending further proceedings.
