CASO

Descargar texto completo EN

Nombre del caso

Balev v. Baggott, 2016 ONCA 680

Referencia INCADAT

HC/E/CA 1369

Tribunal

País

Canadá - Ontario

Nombre

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Instancia

Tribunal de Apelaciones

Juez(ces)

Sharpe J.A., Laskin J.A., B.W. Miller J.A.   

Estados involucrados

Estado requirente

Alemania

Estado requerido

Canadá - Ontario

Fallo

Fecha

13 September 2016

Estado

Sujeto a apelación

Fundamentos

Residencia habitual - art. 3 | Derechos de custodia - art. 3 | Objeciones del niño a la restitución - art. 13(2)

Fallo

Apelación concedida, restitución ordenada

Artículo(s) del Convenio considerados

3 12 13(2)

Artículo(s) del Convenio invocados en la decisión

3 13(2)

Otras disposiciones

Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 46(2) (the “CLRA"), German Civil Code

Jurisprudencia | Casos referidos

Katsigiannis v. Kottick-Katsigiannis (2001), 55 O.R. (3d) 456 (C.A.) [INCADAT Reference HC/E/CA 758]; Jackson v. Graczyk, 2007 ONCA 388, 86 O.R. (3d) 183 [INCADAT Reference HC/E/CA 729]; Korutowska-Wooff v. Wooff (2004), 5 R.F.L. (6th) 104 (Ont. C.A.); Maharaj v. Maharajh, 2011 ONSC 525 (S.C.); Ellis v. Wentzell-Ellis, 2010 ONCA 347, 102 O.R. (3d) 298; Unger v. Unger, 2016 ONSC 4258 (S.C.); Webb v. Gaudaur, 2015 ONSC 6956 (S.C.); Fulmer v. Kaleo-Fulmer, [2002] O.J. No. 3183 (S.C.); Solem v. Solem, 2013 ONSC 1097 (S.C.); Snetzko v. Snetzko (1996), 65 A.C.W.S. (3d) 56 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)); Csoke v. Fustos, 2013 ONSC 2417 (S.C.); Habib v. Amin, 2014 ONSC 5330, 51 R.F.L. (7th) 432 (S.C.); O’Brien v. O'Brien (2008), 59 R.F.L. (6th) 389 (Ont. S.C.); Bazargani v. Mizael, 2015 ONCA 517, 63 R.F.L. (7th) 58; Ibrahim v. Girgis, 2008 ONCA 23, 48 R.F.L. (6th) 1 [INCADAT Reference HC/E/CA 851]; D.S. v. V.W., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 108 [INCADAT Referenc HC/E/CA 17]

SINOPSIS

Sinopsis disponible en EN | FR

2 children wrongfully retained at ages 11 and 8 - Nationals of Canada - Married parents - Father national of Canada - Mother national of Canada - Father transferred physical custody in a notarised letter to the mother for the period April 2013 to August 2014, to allow the children to enroll in a  Canadian school - Children lived in Germany until April 2013 - Application for return filed with the Superior Court of Justice (Family Court Branch) in June 2014 - Return ordered - Main issues: habitual residence, rights of custody, objections of the child to return - A parent cannot unilaterally change the habitual residence of a child during a time-limited period of consensual stay in another State agreed to by the other parent - Contemplation of an extension of such a period of consensual stay does not defeat its time-limited nature - Evidence of the child settling in his new environment is irrelevant if the application for return is brought within one year of the removal or retention - Where rights of custody have been transferred by one parent to another for the sole purpose of enrolling children in school in a given State, the parent who transferred those rights exercises them when the taking parent refuses to return the child, or would have exercised them but for the removal or retention - A child’s objection to return that is unsubstantial or merely expresses a preference for one place over another is insufficient grounds for refusing to order return under Art. 13(2) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention

SUMARIO

Sumario no disponible