The applicant father brought a motion seeking an order restraining the respondent mother from removing the child from Ontario and disputing the respondent’s claim that Hawaii was the proper jurisdiction for custody and access proceedings.
Concurrent proceedings had been commenced in Hawaii.
Applying ss. 22 and 23 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court found that the child was habitually resident in Ontario despite attending school in Hawaii for several years.
Alternatively, the court held that returning the child to Hawaii posed a risk of serious harm given the child’s escalating behaviour and attempts to remain with the father.
The court therefore exercised jurisdiction in Ontario.
