In C.O. v P. G. ONSC 6043, Burrison Hudani Doris successfully defended against the Father’s Application for the return of the parties’ two children to Singapore pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The parties travelled from Ontario to Singapore during the Mother’s second pregnancy. The Mother argued that the parties travelled to Singapore strictly to receive family support during pregnancy and shortly after birth, but that the intention was always to return home to Ontario. The Father disputed this narrative, claiming that the plans to return to Ontario were always “fluid”, and were only considered after the Mother presented him with an ultimatum.

The Court applied the hybrid approach set out by the Supreme Court in Balev, and determined that the focal point of the children’s life immediately prior to the alleged removal or retention was in Ontario.  In making this finding, the Court weighed the evidence regarding the parties’ intentions, as well as the children’s connections (both to each country, and each parent) immediately prior to the alleged wrongful removal. The Court reiterated that the circumstances of young children are inexorably linked to that of their parents, and found that the children’s circumstances were anchored to that of their Mother who was their primary caregiver.

The Court consequently dismissed the Father’s Hague Application and determined that the children were habitual residents in Ontario. Notably this finding was made notwithstanding the fact that the youngest child had never been to Ontario prior to the alleged wrongful removal, and the eldest child had spent more of his young life in Singapore than Ontario.

Read the full case here: C.O. v P. G. ONSC 6043.