2008 QCSC 4762, Superior Court of Qu?bec (District of Montreal), No: 500-04-048266-085
Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and no exception had been established.
2008 QCSC 5320, Superior Court of Qu?bec (District of Hull)
Mother’s application allowed and immediate return of the children to Greece ordered. The children were wrongfully retained and no exception had been established.
Hewstan v. Hewstan, [2001] B.C.J. No. 590 (B.C.S.C.) (Q.L.)
Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
F.C. c. P.A., Droit de la famille – 08728, Cour sup?rieure de Chicoutimi, 28 mars 2008, N?150-04-004667-072
Application dismissed and return refused; the removal was not wrongful and the child was in any event settled in his new environment.
T.B. c. M.T., Cour sup?rieure du Qu?bec, 4 novembre 2003, n? 200-04-011942-032, 200-04-011658-034
Retour ordonn?; le d?placement ?tait illicite et aucune des exceptions conventionnelles n’?taient applicables.
Rechsteiner v. Kendell (1999), 1 R.F.L. 5th 101 (Ont. C.A.)
Return ordered; appeal on Convention issues dismissed and appeal on costs order allowed.
Parsons v. Styger (1989), 67 O.R. (2d) 1 (L.J.S.C.), aff’d (1989) 67 O.R. (2d) 11 (C.A.)
Application allowed; counter-application dismissed. The child was ordered to be returned forthwith to California. If the mother accompanied the child, he would remain in her temporary custody in Los Angeles County with reasonable access to the father, pending any other interim or permanent order of a California court having jurisdiction.
Pollastro v. Pollastro [1999] 45 R.F.L. (4th) 404 (Ont. C.A.)
Appeal allowed and return refused; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the child would face a grave risk of harm had been met.
Lozinska v. Bielawski (1998), 56 O.T.C. 59 (Gen. Div. (Div. Ct.))
Application for leave to appeal dismissed and return ordered. More than one year had elapsed since the wrongful removal but it had not been proved that the child was settled in its new environment.
Hoskins v. Boyd, (1997) 28 RFL (4th) 221
Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the child would face a grave risk of psychological harm had not been met.