Michael Paul Dunmore v. Raha Mehralian

How should Canadian courts determine the habitual residence of children allegedly abducted from or withheld from a non-Hague Convention signatory state?

How should courts balance the countervailing policy objectives outlined in s. 19 of Ontario’s Children’s Law Reform Act?

Should the statutory definition of habitual residence apply to cases involving non-Hague Convention signatory countries?

Should the hybrid test for habitual residence from Office of the Children’s Lawyer v. Balev replace the statutory definition in cases involving non-Hague Convention countries?

Did the lower courts err in exercising jurisdiction over the child in the face of the respondent’s attornment to the jurisdiction of the Omani courts?

Did lower courts err in finding that Ontario has jurisdiction?

In determining habitual residence, particularly if the statutory definition applies, should shared parental intention be the focus of the analysis?