S. Sandhu

The applicant father was successful in a Hague Convention application resulting in an order for the return of the parties' son to California.

Following the decision, the respondent mother went into hiding with the child, necessitating police enforcement.

The father sought full recovery of his legal fees and travel expenses.

The court found the mother's conduct amounted to bad faith and awarded the father $78,535 in litigation costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

Additionally, the court awarded the father $26,500 for travel and accommodation expenses incurred to locate and recover the child pursuant to Article 26 of the Hague Convention, for a total costs award of $105,035.

The moving party mother sought a stay of an order refusing to stay a Hague Convention return order pending her motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The underlying order required the return of the parties' child to California in the custody of the responding party father.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the mother failed to establish a serious issue to be determined, as she was unlikely to be granted leave to appeal the interlocutory order.

The court agreed with the lower court's analysis on irreparable harm and the balance of convenience, noting the mother's history of non-compliance with court orders.

The applicant father sought the return of a young child to California under the Hague Convention after the respondent mother remained in Ontario and disobeyed multiple California custody and access orders.

The court held that California had primary jurisdiction, the father never acquiesced to permanent relocation, and proceedings had been commenced within the Article 12 period through the earlier California petition.

The respondent failed to prove a pending refugee claim despite court-ordered disclosure, leading to an adverse inference that any such claim had been abandoned or failed.

The court rejected grave-risk allegations as not credible or reliable and found California fully capable of protecting the child and the respondent if necessary.

The child was ordered returned immediately to California and Ontario was declared to lack jurisdiction over custody and parenting issues.

Personal injury trial arising from a 2015 motor vehicle accident involving a plaintiff with a prior 2012 collision and earlier mental health history.

The court rejected the defence theory that the plaintiff was malingering or merely misattributing pre-existing impairments, and found that the 2015 accident caused soft tissue injuries, chronic pain, psychological injury, headaches, and cognitive deficits that permanently impaired work and daily functioning.

Applying the but-for causation test and the thin skull rule rather than the crumbling skull principle, the court held that the plaintiff had substantially recovered from the earlier accident but remained vulnerable to more serious consequences from the later collision.

The court awarded general damages, past and future income loss, future care costs, and derivative damages to the family claimant.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident, the defendants brought a threshold motion arguing the plaintiff was barred from recovering non-pecuniary and health care damages under the Insurance Act.

The jury had awarded $10,000 in general damages and $37,133.13 in medical expenses.

The trial judge applied the three-pronged test from Meyer v. Bright and found the plaintiff, a former school principal, suffered permanent serious impairment due to chronic pain syndrome and soft tissue injuries.

The court held the plaintiff met the statutory threshold, dismissing the defendants' motion and allowing the plaintiff to recover the damages awarded by the jury.