In concluding that these two children were habitually resident in Germany, the application judge relied upon paragraph 51 of Cornaz v. Cornaz-Nikyuuw, [2005] O.J. No. 4121 (S.C.) for the proposition that “a wrongful retention does not bring about a change in the habitual residence of the child as it is a unilateral action.” While we agree with that proposition, we do not think it entirely resolves this matter.
"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.