CASE

Download full text EN

Case Name

Sampley v. Sampley 2015 BCCA 113

INCADAT reference

HC/E/CA 1362

Court

Country

CANADA - BRITISH COLUMBIA

Name

Court of Appeal of British Columbia

Level

Appellate Court

Judge(s)

Justice Lowry, Justice D. Smith, Justice Harris

States involved

Requesting State

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Requested State

CANADA - BRITISH COLUMBIA

Decision

Date

18 March 2015

Status

-

Grounds

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Order

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

HC article(s) Considered

3 4 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 31

HC article(s) Relied Upon

3 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b)

Other provisions

-

Authorities | Cases referred to

Thomson v. Thomson, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 551 [INCADAT Reference HC/E/CA 11]; Cannock v. Fleguel, 2008 ONCA 758; Pollastro v. Pollastro (1999), 171 D.L.R. (4th) 32; W.(V.) v. S.(D.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 108 [INCADAT Reference HC/E/CA 17]; Ellis v. Wentzell-Ellis, 2010 ONCA 347

Published in

-

SYNOPSIS

Synopsis available in EN | FR

1 child wrongfully retained at age 2 - Married parents - Father national of the United States of America - Mother national of Canada - Child lived in the United States of America until 2013 - Application for return filed in 2013 - Return ordered - Main issue: Habitual residence, acquiescence and the Art.13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return - The application of the Art. 13(1)(b) exception requires the child’s exposure to a high degree, intensity and frequency of physical or psychological abuse - A return order that does not deliver the child and parent directly to the left-behind parent upon return diminishes the risk of incidents of domestic abuse occurring, while ensuring that the appropriate forum adjudicates the merits of custody and access issues

Un enfant illicitement retenu à l’âge de 2 ans - Parents mariés - Père ressortissant des États-Unis - Mère ressortissante du Canada - Enfant résident aux États-Unis jusqu’en 2013 - Demande de retour déposée en 2013 - Retour ordonné - Principaux enjeux : résidence habituelle, acquiescement, exception de risque grave de l’art 13(1)(b) - L’application de l’exception de l’art. 13(1)(b) exige l’exposition significative de l’enfant à une violence physique et psychologique intense et fréquente - Une décision de retour qui ne prononce pas le retour du parent et de l’enfant directement auprès du parent privé de l’enfant diminue le risque de violence conjugale éventuelle, tout en s’assurant que le for approprié statuera sur les questions de droits de garde et de contacts

SUMMARY

No summary available