Steven Myles Bookman

The appellant mother appealed the dismissal of her Hague Convention application seeking the return of her child to France.

The mother had taken the child to France in October 2018, and the respondent father brought the child back to Ontario in February 2019.

The application judge found that the child's habitual residence remained Canada throughout this period, as the father had only consented to a two-week trip to France, making the mother's retention of the child wrongful.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's application of the Balev hybrid approach to determine habitual residence.

On appeal from a Superior Court decision dismissing an application under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The appellant sought the return of four children to Germany, arguing they were habitually resident there.

The respondent opposed the application, arguing the children were habitually resident in Ontario.

The application judge found the children were habitually resident in Ontario and dismissed the application.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming the application of the hybrid model for determining habitual residence established in Office of the Children's Lawyer v. Balev.

The court rejected all grounds of appeal, including allegations of inadequate reasons, misapplication of the hybrid model, factual errors, and procedural errors regarding the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

Following a motion where the court assumed jurisdiction over custody and access matters but refused to stay the access provisions of a German court order, both parties sought costs.

The mother sought full indemnity costs of $13,000 based on an offer to settle, while the father sought substantial indemnity costs of $16,699.

The court found the mother was primarily successful on the central issue of jurisdiction, but her non-severable offer to settle was not as favourable as the final order because she did not obtain the requested adjournment of the father's enforcement motion.

Considering divided success, the father's failure to make an offer, and the mother's need to amend her pleadings, the court awarded the mother partial recovery costs of $4,000.

The applicant mother sought an order granting the Ontario Court of Justice jurisdiction to decide matters of custody, access, and child support regarding their four-year-old son, and requested a stay of the access provisions of a German court order.

The respondent father sought a declaration that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction and that the German court was the appropriate forum.

The court determined that Ontario had jurisdiction because the child was habitually resident in Ontario pursuant to a consent order from the German court.

The court recognized the German order as valid and enforceable in Ontario but granted the mother leave to amend her application to seek supersession of the order based on material change in circumstances.

This appeal addressed habitual residence under Article 3 of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction after a parent retained children in Canada beyond a time-limited consent period.

The Court adopted a hybrid, multi-factor approach that evaluates all relevant circumstances, including but not limited to parental intent and the child's links to each state.

The Court also endorsed a non-technical approach to Article 13(2), requiring proof of sufficient maturity and a genuine objection before discretion is exercised.

Although the matter was moot, the appeal was resolved to clarify national law and emphasize expeditious handling of return proceedings.

The applicant father sought costs following the settlement of a Hague Convention application for the return of the children to the Netherlands.

The respondent mother had heavily resisted the application and brought an unsuccessful motion to adjourn the hearing.

The court noted the mother's lack of corroborating evidence for her claims of abuse and grave risk of harm, contrasting it with the father's extensive corroborating affidavits.

The court awarded the applicant father partial indemnity costs of $15,000 for the application, $2,000 for the adjournment motion, and ordered the previously awarded $5,000 to be payable forthwith, for a total of $22,000.

This case involved two motions within a Hague Convention application concerning the wrongful removal of four children from the Netherlands to Canada by the respondent mother.

The applicant father sought the children's return and parenting time, while the respondent sought an order for the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) to investigate.

The court dismissed the respondent's OCL motion, emphasizing the Hague Convention's principle of prompt return and the inappropriateness of using an OCL investigation to delay proceedings or ascertain children's views in this context.

The court found that wrongful removal was established based on a Dutch court order confirming joint parental authority and habitual residence in the Netherlands, and the respondent's misrepresentation of her intent to return.

The applicant's motion for parenting time was granted, establishing a schedule for video calls.

Costs were awarded to the applicant, with payment deferred to the judge hearing the main application.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a costs order made by Bielby J., which directed her to pay $10,221.40 to the respondent following a motion addressing access issues.

The applicant argued that the motions judge erred in assessing her offer to settle, misapplied legal principles, and made a disproportionate costs award.

Applying the two-part test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure (applicable via Family Law Rules), the court found no conflicting decisions on matters of principle and no reason to doubt the correctness of the costs order.

It noted that costs awards are discretionary and should only be set aside for errors in principle or if plainly wrong.

Leave to appeal was denied.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interim child and spousal support order to the Divisional Court.

The interim order imputed income to the moving party due to non-disclosure and questionable business deductions.

The court applied the strict test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the interim order, and no issues of general or public importance.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the responding party.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer brought a motion to stay an order requiring a mother to return her two children to Germany pursuant to the Hague Convention, pending an anticipated application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The father opposed the stay and challenged the OCL's standing.

The court assumed standing but dismissed the stay motion, finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm to the children, and that the balance of convenience favoured their prompt return to Germany to have custody determined in their habitual residence.

The appellant father and respondent mother lived in Germany with their two children.

The mother brought the children to Ontario for a time-limited educational stay with the father's consent.

When the consent period expired, the mother refused to return the children to Germany.

The application judge ordered the children's return under the Hague Convention, finding their habitual residence remained in Germany.

The Divisional Court reversed this decision, finding the habitual residence had changed to Ontario.

The Court of Appeal allowed the father's appeal, holding that a parent cannot unilaterally change a child's habitual residence during a time-limited consensual stay, and ordered the children returned to Germany.

The respondent father moved for an interim order to expand access to his two-year-old son and to change the access exchange location.

The applicant mother opposed the expanded access and sought an order for the respondent to contribute to their 17-year-old son's hockey registration fees.

The court dismissed the father's request for expanded access, finding no material change in circumstances to warrant varying the existing consent order.

However, the court granted the father's request to change the exchange location to the parties' respective residences.

The court also ordered the father to contribute $1,000 to the hockey registration fees.

Following the release of its decision on the main appeal, the Divisional Court realized it had inadvertently omitted addressing the appellant's supplementary notice of appeal regarding a $10,000 costs order made by the motion judge.

The respondent argued the issue should be left to the Court of Appeal or dismissed due to late service.

The Court rejected these arguments, deciding to hear the costs appeal and setting a timetable for written submissions.

The appellant father brought a second appeal regarding a trial judgment that awarded custody of a three-year-old child to the respondent mother and allowed her to relocate to England.

The first appeal judge upheld the trial judge's decisions on custody and relocation but remitted the final order back to the trial judge to correct errors and inconsistencies.

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal judge erred in remitting the matter, as the trial judge had properly settled the order and was functus officio.

The appeal was allowed in part to set aside the remitted order and restore the original trial order.

The appellant father brought a motion for interim access to his three-year-old child for a three-week block in Toronto, which was heard alongside his appeal of a custody and relocation order.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing it would interfere with the child's half-day nursery school attendance and conflict with a prior access order.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding that fostering a meaningful relationship with the non-custodial parent and his family outweighed the importance of nursery school attendance, and noting that the prior access order restricting access to one-week blocks was a nullity.

The appellant mother appealed an order declaring she wrongfully retained her two children in Ontario and requiring their return to Germany under the Hague Convention.

The children had moved to Ontario with the respondent father's consent for a temporary period.

The Divisional Court found that the application judge erred in concluding the children's habitual residence remained in Germany.

The Court held that during the 16-month consensual period, the children's habitual residence changed to Ontario.

The appeal was allowed, the return order was set aside, and the Hague application was dismissed.

Following a Hague Convention application in which the court ordered the return of two children to Germany after finding the mother had wrongfully retained them in Ontario, the court determined the issue of costs.

The father sought over $67,000 on a partial indemnity basis, while the mother argued that each party should bear their own costs or that any award should be substantially reduced.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and Article 26 of the Hague Convention, the court found the father was the successful party but reduced the claimed costs due to excessive billing, duplication of work, inclusion of unrelated steps, and some unreasonable conduct by the father during the proceedings.

The court also considered the mother’s success on a motion involving the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and her financial circumstances.

A global costs award was made reflecting a fair and reasonable amount in the circumstances.

The applicant brought a motion under Family Law Rule 11(3) seeking leave to amend her application to include a claim under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The proposed amendment alleged that following separation the respondent transferred substantial funds from a corporation owned directly or indirectly by the applicant to a corporation owned by the respondent.

The respondent opposed the amendment on the basis that the corporations involved should be added as parties to the proceeding.

The court held that amendments should be permitted unless the responding party would suffer non-compensable prejudice, and found that the s. 5(6) claim could be adjudicated without adding the corporations.

The motion to amend was therefore granted.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of his two children to Germany.

The children had travelled to Canada with the respondent mother for an educational exchange with the father's consent, which expired in August 2014.

The mother refused to return the children, arguing they were habitually resident in Canada and objected to returning.

The court found the children's habitual residence remained Germany and their retention in Canada was wrongful.

The court rejected the mother's defences under Articles 12 and 13, finding the children's objections were not substantial enough to override the Convention's purpose.

The children were ordered returned to Germany.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings on certain issues for non-compliance with various disclosure orders.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion, noting ample evidence that the appellant remained in default and that the default was wilful.

The motion judge had mitigated the drastic remedy by allowing the appellant to move to reinstate his pleadings on proper evidence, which he failed to pursue in a timely fashion.

The appeal was dismissed.