Having concluded that the child’s habitual residence was Dubai, the application judge went on to consider whether the child would suffer “serious harm” if returned to it. She stated that this level of harm must rise to a “high threshold”. Relying upon Thomson v. Thomson, 1994 CanLII 26 (SCC), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 551, at p. 596, she concluded that to exempt the child from being returned to her habitual residence because of harm, that harm must rise to the level of an “intolerable situation”. Again, without resolving the conflict in the parties’ narratives, the application judge concluded that the mother had failed to meet her burden to show that level of harm.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.