The applicant father and respondent mother lived in California but jointly decided to relocate to Ontario, purchasing a home and shipping their belongings.
During the move, the mother travelled to Connecticut with their child and decided to separate.
The father continued to Ontario and later brought the child to Ontario for a visit, subsequently commencing a custody application.
The mother challenged the Ontario court's jurisdiction under s. 22(1) of the Children's Law Reform Act.
The court found that despite the child not being habitually resident in Ontario, the court had jurisdiction under s. 22(1)(b) because the parties had a shared settled intention to move to Ontario, establishing a real and substantial connection, and the balance of convenience favoured Ontario.
