Meghann P. Melito and Isabel Brisson | Mar 2026
International child abduction cases are a matter of great concern to Canadian and international courts alike. The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Convention) was designed to secure the prompt return of children who were wrongfully removed to or retained in any contracting state, and to ensure that the rights of custody and access under the law of one contracting state are effectively respected in the
other contracting states.
The emphasis on urgency is reinforced by Article 11 of the Convention, which states that the judicial or administrative authorities in the contracting state shall act expeditiously in proceedings for the return of
the children. If a decision is not reached within six weeks of the date of commencement of the application, the applicant or the central authority of the requested state may request a statement of the reasons for delay.
In Ontario, this objective is reflected in Rule 37.2(3) of the Family Law Rules, which requires that international child abduction cases under the Hague Convention be disposed of not later than six weeks after they are commenced. The significance of prompt return was clearly enunciated by the Court of Appeal in Leigh v. Rubio, 2022 ONCA 582, stating:
Prompt return protects against the harmful effects of wrongful removal or retention, deters parents from abducting the child in the hope that they will be able to establish links in a new country that might ultimately award them custody, and provides for a speedy adjudication of the merits of a custody or access dispute in the forum of a child’s habitual residence, which eliminates disputes about the proper forum for resolution of custody and access issues [para. 20].
Yet, despite the words of the Convention, the Family Law Rules and the jurisprudence, litigants too often wait months for their Hague Convention abduction matter to be adjudicated. Such was the case in Leigh v. Rubio. Because of the delay, the court was limited in its remedies; it was “simply too late” to return the child, who was now estranged from his father.
There are significant consequences when child abduction cases are not heard within an expedited timeline. The case of Kovacs v. Kovacs, [2002] O.J. No. 3074 is an older but important example of this. The respondent mother fled Hungary with her children and claimed refugee status in Canada, alleging that the applicant father was abusive and that Hungarian authorities could not provide sufficient protection. The application was heard within seven months, and the court stated that the norm was approximately three to four months. The court rejected the submission that the delay did not harm the applicant father’s interests.
In Kovacs, the refugee claims undoubtedly created a delay; however, Justice Lee Kenneth Ferrier identified an important concern: that an expeditious determination would be impossible if the Canadian refugee screening and adjudication process ran its normal course and thus, the tenet of the Convention would be defeated.
The recent decision of Justice Diana Piccoli of the Ontario Superior Court should serve as a model of how courts should proceed with Convention applications. In Patel v. Bhatt, 2026 ONSC 905, the Kitchener, Ont., court received the father’s application on Jan. 27, 2026. Prior to the issuance of the Hague Application on Feb. 5, 2026, Justice Piccoli convened with Justice Wood from the Ohio court, exemplifying the type of prompt judicial cooperation and expeditious handling envisioned by the Convention.
The parties appeared for a settlement conference on Feb. 5, 2026, and the matter was heard on Feb. 12 and 13. As is common for these types of cases, the parties led affidavit evidence with cross-examination, and the court had the benefit of expert evidence on the immigration issues. Only 11 days following the hearing, on Feb. 24, Justice Piccoli released her decision, ordering the child return to her place of habitual residence, Ohio.
It is essential for both counsel and the judiciary to take note of the Supreme Court of Canada’s direction in Office of the Children’s Lawyer v. Balev, 2018 SCC 16. An expedited proceeding is in the best interest of the child(ren) involved, and as such, applications should be “judge-led and not party driven.” The approach taken in Patel v. Bhatt demonstrates that the six-week timeline is not aspirational; when courts actively manage these applications, they are achievable and advance the Convention’s central purpose.
Even where the six-week timeline cannot be realistically met given intersecting proceedings such as refugee claims or criminal matters, it is nonetheless important to prioritize expediency, provided it does not compromise the interests of justice.
You can read this article directly on Law360.
Meghann P. Melito is a partner at MacDonald & Partners LLP where she has practised family law since 2015. She advocates for clients on all family law issues, but has a particular interest in international family law issues. Isabel Brisson is an articling student with MacDonald & Partners LLP.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author's firm, its clients, LexisNexis Canada, Law360 Canada, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
