Esheria Canada Case Law
Sign in
Canada Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Canada Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
3 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter Canada case law

Results update automatically as you type.

Canada decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Family law 2026 BCSC 751

Gill v. Gill

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Court found British Columbia has territorial jurisdiction because the child was habitually resident in BC; the respondent's continued pursuit of duplicative Nevada proceedings while making inaccurate representations about BC's orders and failing to bring a forum non conveniens/stay application in BC constitutes an abuse of process; an anti-suit injunction was denied as premature because the Nevada Supreme Court has remitted the forum non conveniens question to the Nevada District Court and comity requires allowing that process to run; as a proportionate remedy the respondent's Response to…

Source excerpt

  • Habitual residence
  • Forum non conveniens
  • Abuse of process
  • Anti-suit injunction
  • Jurisdictional dispute
  • Uccjea
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCCA 184

Leger v. Williams

Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal

The stay application was dismissed because s.234 of the Family Law Act confines the power to suspend an operative order to the court that made the order; the operative Wright Order refused a stay and the appellant had not pursued the required appeal of that refusal to the Supreme Court under s.233. The Court of Appeal's exceptional jurisdiction to grant a stay where other avenues are closed (as noted in T.F.R.) did not apply because the appellant still had the procedural route to the Supreme Court. The no-fee application was granted because the appellant satisfied the financial criteria and h…

Source excerpt

  • Child return
  • Habitual residence
  • Stay pending appeal
  • Jurisdiction of appellate court
  • No-fee application
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCSC 645

Chau v. Tsang

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

Child was habitually resident in Hong Kong from birth until removal on December 25, 2025; Mr. Chau was exercising custody rights at removal; the removal was therefore wrongful under Articles 3 and 12 of the Hague Convention; Ms. Tsang failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that return would expose Jay to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm under Article 13(b) or would offend fundamental principles under Article 20; accordingly, pursuant to Article 12 the court ordered Jay's immediate return to Hong Kong and set aside the BC protection and non-removal orders; a police enfor…

Source excerpt

  • Wrongful removal
  • Habitual residence
  • Article 13(b) grave risk exception
  • Article 20 human rights exception
  • Protection order
  • Non-removal order
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCCA 141

Taddeo v. Ouellet

Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal

Article 13(b) was correctly interpreted to include, as an independent category subject to the Convention's high threshold, an "otherwise intolerable situation"; the chambers judge reasonably found that returning the child to Mexico would place the child in an otherwise intolerable situation because the primary caregiver would face no housing, no means of financial support and no prospect of earning sufficient income, and the appellant could not be relied upon to provide support; the appellant's ineffective assistance and fresh evidence claims fail because he did not produce former counsel com…

Source excerpt

  • Hague convention article 13(b)
  • Grave risk of harm
  • Ineffective assistance of counsel
  • Fresh evidence
  • Habitual residence
  • Child custody
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 NSSC 94

Naik v. Naik

Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The child was habitually resident in Lewisville, Texas immediately prior to May 17, 2024, but the applicant filed the Hague application after one year and, on balance of probabilities, knew the child's location since July 13, 2024; the child is well settled in Nova Scotia and the applicant is no longer resident in the US, creating a grave risk that return would place the child in an intolerable situation under Article 13(b); accordingly the court declines to order return and dismisses the application.

Source excerpt

  • Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction
  • Habitual residence
  • Wrongful retention/removal
  • Article 12 (settled child)
  • Article 13 (grave risk)
  • Child welfare
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCSC 447

M.J.F. v. G.J.F.

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

Court found BC could exercise jurisdiction over parenting because the children were physically present in BC and substantial evidence was available, but declined jurisdiction over divorce, property and support in favour of Washington on forum non conveniens grounds (more ties, property law and evidence in Washington, risk of multiplicity and conflicting orders); accordingly BC proceedings on divorce, property and support were stayed while BC retained jurisdiction over parenting and ordered reunification counselling and staged contact.

Source excerpt

  • Jurisdiction
  • Forum non conveniens
  • Habitual residence
  • Guardianship
  • Parenting arrangements
  • Child support
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCSC 442

Botten v. Botten

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

Because E. became habitually resident in Italy when relocated in July 2025, s.6.3 of the Divorce Act removes this Court's jurisdiction to make the requested parenting and travel orders absent the child's presence in British Columbia and exceptional circumstances, which were not shown; a Separation Agreement cannot preserve jurisdiction contrary to s.6.3.

Source excerpt

  • Habitual residence
  • Jurisdiction under s.6.3 of the divorce act
  • Relocation
  • Parenting time
  • Enforcement of separation agreements
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCSC 414

Kane v. Kane

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court fixed the date of alleged wrongful retention as November 5, 2025; applying the Balev/Ludwig hybrid approach and Article 31's territorial‑unit focus, the court found the focal point of the children's lives immediately before that date was Nanaimo, British Columbia, and therefore there was no wrongful retention under the Hague Convention; alternatively, even if the children were habitually resident in the United States, the petitioner had acquiesced to their remaining in British Columbia and return would be refused under Article 13.

Source excerpt

  • Habitual residence
  • Wrongful retention
  • Article 31 territorial unit analysis
  • Article 13 acquiescence/grave risk exception
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCSC 317

D.T.C. v. M.I.V.M.

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Child most recently resided and was 'at home' in Abbotsford, British Columbia; the claimant did not acquiesce or delay such that s.72(3) would change habitual residence; therefore BC courts have jurisdiction simpliciter under ss.72-74 FLA; the respondent failed to establish that Bolivia is a clearly more appropriate forum (forum non conveniens), particularly given Bolivian orders obtained without proper notice and respondent's misleading communications; however an immediate indefinite return order would not be appropriate on the materials because of best interests and family violence cons…

Source excerpt

  • Habitual residence
  • Jurisdiction simpliciter
  • Forum non conveniens
  • Return order
  • Family violence
  • Service and notice of foreign proceedings
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 NSSC 12

Gonzalez v. Aldana

Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The child was habitually resident in Bogota, Colombia immediately prior to removal; the father did not consent to the September 26, 2024 removal and the April 3, 2024 deed did not authorize unilateral relocation to Canada; the mother failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that return would expose the child to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or place her in an intolerable situation under Article 13(b); therefore the Hague Convention return order is granted with specified undertakings to mitigate transitional risk.

Source excerpt

  • Hague convention (1980)
  • Child abduction
  • Habitual residence
  • Article 13(b) grave risk
  • Consent to removal
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

Canada decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.