Wallace v. Williamson 2020 ONSC 1376
Adkins v. Adkins, 2009 BCSC 337
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/09/03/2009BCSC0337.htm
Alexander v. Cherry, [2007] C.C.S. No. 8215; [2007] A.J. No. 632; 2007 ABCA 128 (12 April 2007)
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.
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.
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.
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.
S. v. S., 25 May 1998, transcript (Unofficial Translation), Austrian Regional Civil Court, Graz
Appeal allowed and case remitted to the District Civil Court of Graz to rule on the father’s application for access.
Richards & Director-General, Department of Child Safety [2007] FamCA 65
Appeal dismissed and return order confirmed; whilst the children objected to a return the standard required under Article 13(2) had not been reached.