Zakiya Bhayat

The father applied for a protective separation and sole decision-making authority to repair his relationship with his two children, alleging parental alienation by the mother.

The court found that the mother had engaged in alienating behaviours and failed to authentically support the children's relationship with their father.

The court ordered a 90-day protective separation during which the children will reside solely with the father and have no contact with the mother.

The father and children were ordered to participate in the Turning Points for Families intensive reunification program.

The mother's claim for unjust enrichment regarding the jointly owned home was dismissed, and various financial and child support orders were made.

The applicant, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, received notice of relocation to Manitoba and sought an urgent case conference after the respondent refused to consent to the child's relocation.

The court reviewed the recent relocation amendments to the Children's Law Reform Act, noting the applicant appeared to have complied with the notice requirements.

The court granted the request for an urgent case conference to allow the parties to receive judicial input on the new relocation protocol and ordered the respondent to formally notify the applicant of his objection.

The father, U.K., brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the child, A.K., to Sugar Land, Texas, alleging wrongful removal or retention by the mother, N.A. The mother opposed, arguing the Hague Convention did not apply or, alternatively, that exceptions under Articles 12, 13(a), and 13(b) applied.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was Texas and that the removal was wrongful.

However, the court granted all three of the mother's exceptions: the father's subsequent acquiescence (particularly due to his withdrawal of the mother's green card application), grave risk of psychological harm or intolerable situation if the child were returned without the primary caregiver mother (due to her immigration status), and the child being settled in.

Consequently, the father's Hague Convention application was dismissed, and the Ontario Court of Justice assumed jurisdiction over the substantive custody and access issues.

The applicant sought a restraining order under section 35 of the Children's Law Reform Act against the respondent following the end of a short-term intimate relationship.

The respondent initially challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing the parties were not spouses or cohabitants.

The applicant presented evidence of persistent harassment including threatening text messages about contacting Children's Aid Society, unauthorized circulation of intimate photographs, surveillance at the applicant's residence, and continued contact despite explicit requests to cease.

The respondent, appearing self-represented, filed an unsigned and undated answer denying the allegations and providing an implausible account of events.

The court found the respondent's evidence lacked credibility and granted a final restraining order prohibiting all direct and indirect contact and requiring the respondent to remain 200 metres from the applicant and her children.