Law360 Canada ( June 20, 2025, 2:46 PM EDT) -- Appeal by Dunmore from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirming a decision of the Superior Court which dismissed his motion seeking the return of the parties’ child to Oman. Dunmore and Mehralian married and lived in different jurisdictions including in Oman. They travelled to Ontario where they stayed longer than planned because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Their son, M, was born in Ontario. The family eventually returned to Oman but came back to Ontario a few months later. An allegation of domestic violence led to the parties’ separation. Dunmore returned to Oman while Mehralian remained in Ontario with M. Mehralian and Dunmore commenced family law proceedings in Ontario and Oman respectively. Dunmore brought a motion in the Ontario Superior Court challenging the jurisdiction of Ontario courts to determine the parenting issues and seeking M’s return to his care in Oman which he claimed was the child’s habitual residence. The motion judge dismissed the motion concluding that Ontario courts had jurisdiction because M was habitually resident in Ontario for the purposes of s. 22(1)(a) of the Ontario’s Children’s Law Reform Act (Act). Dunmore appealed arguing that the motion judge had erred in concluding that M was habitually resident in Ontario because she had failed to consider the settled intention of the parties. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Dunmore argued that the motion judge erred in taking jurisdiction over the child based on habitual residence and by declining to take a shared parental intention approach in determining where the child “resided.” Mehralian asked that the appeal be dismissed....