International Child Custody and Hague Convention Returns: What Maarif v. El Fazazi Means for Ontario Parents
Hague Return Orders Overturned on Appeal: What Maarif v. El Fazazi (2026 ONCA 584) Means for Ontario Parents
A Hague return order was made at first instance, then overturned on appeal. Maarif v. El Fazazi, 2026 ONCA 584 shows that habitual residence can be clear, yet cumulative grave-risk evidence can still defeat return in Ontario.
In This Guide
This guide explains the facts, appeal outcome, legal findings, practical lessons, local Ontario steps, and common questions arising from Maarif v. El Fazazi, 2026 ONCA 584.
What happened in Maarif v. El Fazazi?
In Maarif v. El Fazazi, Justice Doyle of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released reasons on February 20, 2026.
The mother brought five-year-old Sabrine from Morocco to Ottawa on March 19, 2025. The father did not consent to the international move.
The father applied under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. He sought a Morocco child return order.
At first instance, Maarif v. El Fazazi, 2026 ONSC 977 ordered Sabrine’s return to Morocco.
On appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the mother’s appeal in Maarif v. El Fazazi, 2026 ONCA 584. Justice Madsen, with Justices Thorburn and Rahman concurring, released the decision on August 17, 2026. The Court of Appeal set aside the return order, dismissed the father’s Hague application, held that Ontario courts have jurisdiction under s. 23 of the Children’s Law Reform Act to determine decision-making responsibility and parenting time, and remitted the matter to the Superior Court.
Was Morocco the child’s habitual residence?
Yes.
The application judge applied the hybrid approach from Office of the Children’s Lawyer v. Balev, 2018 SCC 16. This approach considers the child’s real-life circumstances, parental intentions, and the child’s family and social environment.
The application judge called this the “focal point” of the child’s life.
Sabrine was born in Morocco. She lived there until the move. She held Moroccan citizenship. She attended school there. Her extended family lived there. Her languages and cultural connections also tied her to Morocco.
The mother had begun a new life in Canada. She lived with a partner, attended school, worked, and helped Sabrine adjust to life in Ottawa.
Those Canadian connections did not change the application judge’s conclusion. The critical date was immediately before the removal. At that time, Morocco remained the focal point of Sabrine’s life.
The Court of Appeal confirmed that habitual-residence finding. This finding is central to international child custody in Ontario. A parent’s new home, immigration status, or plans for Canada does not automatically establish a child’s habitual residence.
Did the father have custody rights under Moroccan law?
Yes.
Moroccan law distinguishes between day-to-day custody and legal guardianship.
The mother held hadana, meaning primary day-to-day care and residence. The father retained wilaya, meaning legal guardianship and decision-making authority.
The foreign-law evidence showed that the father’s guardianship included important decisions about:
Education.
Upbringing.
Major administrative matters.
International travel.
The child’s place of residence across borders.
The mother did not obtain the father’s consent or a Moroccan court order permitting international travel with Sabrine.
The Ontario court held that the father’s guardianship rights qualified as “rights of custody” under Article 3 of the Hague Convention.
The removal was therefore wrongful.
A parent does not need primary day-to-day care to hold Hague Convention custody rights. A legal right to determine a child’s international residence may be enough.
How did the Court of Appeal deal with grave risk under Article 13(b)?
The mother relied on Article 13(b). This defence applies where return would expose a child to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or place the child in an intolerable situation.
The threshold remains high.
At first instance, the application judge rejected the Article 13(b) defence. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that this was the wrong result because the risk evidence had been assessed too narrowly and in isolation.
The Court of Appeal’s key point was cumulative analysis.
It held that the application judge erred by failing to assess the prospective harm on a combined basis, including:
the father’s Moroccan criminal conviction for assault against the child
the mother’s near-certain inability to return to Morocco
the practical legal consequences the mother would face there
the absence of enforceable safety measures that would realistically protect the child on return
the father’s “chasing order” revoking the mother’s custody
The appeal reasons accepted that these issues could not be sliced into separate compartments.
The Court of Appeal held that the mother’s inability to return to Morocco mattered in a concrete way. The record showed that unmarried cohabitation exposed her to criminal prosecution there, while marriage would forfeit her parenting rights. That meant the child’s return could effectively separate her from her primary caregiver in circumstances tied directly to the Article 13(b) analysis.
The Court of Appeal also held that proposed safeguards and undertakings were not enough on this record. The problem was not whether undertakings sounded helpful in the abstract. The problem was whether there were enforceable, realistic protections that addressed the actual risk facing this child.
On the proper prospective and cumulative assessment, the Court of Appeal concluded that returning Sabrine to Morocco would expose her to a grave risk of harm under Article 13(b).
That is the current and governing outcome in Maarif v. El Fazazi.
The practical lesson for Ontario parents in Orangeville, Dufferin County, and Brampton is twofold.
First, general concerns about another country are still not enough by themselves.
Second, courts must assess the whole picture. Evidence should address the particular child, the real-world position of each parent, the availability of enforceable protections, the likely consequences of return, and whether those factors, taken together, create grave risk.
How were the child’s views treated?
Sabrine consistently said that she wanted to remain in Canada with her mother. The court accepted that her views were genuine and independently expressed.
Age five did not make her views irrelevant. The court listened to her.
However, the court decided that her age and maturity did not make her objection determinative. She understood that she wanted to stay with her mother. The court found that she did not fully understand the long-term consequences of refusing a return to Morocco.
The Hague Convention gives children a voice. It does not automatically give a young child the final decision. In Maarif v. El Fazazi, the appeal succeeded on grave risk, not on the child’s objection.
What undertakings were attached to the return order?
At first instance, the court attached 22 undertakings to support the proposed transition.
The undertakings included:
Daily video communication between Sabrine and her mother.
Immediate meaningful contact between mother and child after return.
No harassment, threats, intimidation, or pressure against the mother.
Civil communication limited to child-related matters.
Assistance with travel, passport, and immigration documents.
Safe accommodation for Sabrine.
Continuity in education, medical care, and counselling.
Support for the child’s emotional relationship with her mother.
Regular photographs and updates.
Security posted through counsel.
Participation in Moroccan custody proceedings.
The undertakings were transitional measures. They did not decide final decision-making responsibility or parenting time.
On appeal, however, the return order was set aside. The Court of Appeal’s reasoning makes an important practical point for Ontario parents: undertakings do not answer every Hague risk issue. A court must still ask whether the proposed protections are realistically enforceable and sufficient in light of the full record.
The first-instance costs disposition did not survive appeal. The Court of Appeal vacated the costs ruling below, ordered no costs at first instance, and awarded the mother $15,000 in appeal costs.
What happens if the other parent ignores a Hague Convention return order?
Even where a return order is obtained and upheld, enforcement can still fail. A Hague Convention return order is a major step. It is not the same thing as the child actually coming home.
That practical gap was highlighted in publicly reported 2026 coverage involving a Brampton father, Michal Kwadrans. According to CP24’s August 19, 2026 report, he obtained a return order in Rzeszów, Poland after an eight-week trial. The order required the child’s return to Canada within 14 days. The mother’s appeal was dismissed. Even so, the child was not returned.
This is general legal information only. It is not legal advice. Every Hague case depends on the country involved, the local court process, the available evidence, and the enforcement steps taken after the return order is made.
A return order and a return are not the same thing
Parents in Orangeville, Dufferin County, and Brampton often assume that winning the Hague case ends the problem.
It may not.
A Hague court can order the child returned. But the parent who has the child still has to comply, or local authorities in the foreign country must enforce the order.
In the publicly reported Brampton matter, the father reportedly won the order and the appeal was dismissed. Yet the child still never came back to Canada. That is the hard reality of some cross-border parenting abduction cases.
The risk of a second disappearance
One of the biggest risks after a return order is what many parents describe as a second abduction.
That risk arises when the parent holding the child disappears again before the scheduled handoff, airport transfer, or travel date.
According to the public report, the child and mother never appeared at the airport on the scheduled return date. The father then reported no further contact.
That kind of breakdown matters. It can turn a Hague return file into a parallel enforcement and location effort. In practical terms, that may involve:
local police follow-up in the foreign country
court motions or applications to locate the child
missing-persons reports
border and travel tracing requests where available
private investigators or local foreign counsel
A parent in Orangeville or Brampton dealing with this kind of non-compliance should understand that timing matters at every stage.
Why enforcement can still be difficult in a Hague Convention country
A Hague Convention country is not the same as a country where enforcement will be simple.
The Convention creates a return framework. It does not remove every enforcement obstacle.
The publicly reported Poland case is a useful example. Poland is a Hague Convention country. But the report also stated that Poland does not currently have an extradition treaty with Canada. That can complicate the criminal-enforcement side when a parent is outside Canada.
It can also leave the left-behind parent pursuing several tracks at once, including:
Hague return enforcement through the foreign court system
local police requests in the foreign country
location orders and missing-persons processes
Canadian criminal proceedings
consular assistance through Global Affairs Canada
That is why coordinated action in both countries is often necessary.
Can parental abduction also lead to criminal charges in Canada?
Yes.
The Hague process is civil. It deals with return. It does not by itself determine criminal guilt.
At the same time, parental abduction can also carry criminal consequences in Canada. In the publicly reported Brampton case, Peel Regional Police issued a Canada-wide warrant for abduction of a person under 14.
That point matters for families in Brampton, Orangeville, and across Dufferin County. A wrongful cross-border removal may create two separate but connected legal tracks:
a family-law Hague return proceeding
a Canadian criminal investigation or charge
Those tracks serve different purposes. One aims at return and jurisdiction. The other addresses alleged criminal conduct. Depending on the facts, both may move at the same time.
What can Global Affairs Canada actually do?
Global Affairs Canada can play an important support role when a Canadian child is abroad.
According to the public reporting, Global Affairs Canada became involved in the Brampton father’s case and provided consular assistance.
Consular officials may be able to:
communicate with the left-behind parent
share process information
facilitate contact with foreign authorities or Canadian officials
help the family navigate available consular channels
But there are limits.
Global Affairs Canada cannot order a foreign judge to enforce a return order. It cannot direct foreign police to arrest someone. It cannot replace local counsel in the foreign country.
That distinction is important for Ontario parents. Consular support can help. It is not a substitute for court enforcement steps in the other country.
Practical lessons for Ontario, Orangeville, and Brampton parents
The reported Brampton situation reinforces several practical points that already apply to Hague files across Ontario.
Quick Facts
A Hague return order is important, but it may not end the case.
Non-compliance can trigger a second disappearance risk.
Enforcement may require family, criminal, consular, and foreign-court steps at the same time.
Peel Regional Police may become involved where there is an alleged criminal abduction.
Global Affairs Canada can assist, but it cannot compel a foreign court or police service to act.
Parents in Orangeville and Dufferin County may still need coordinated action tied to proceedings in Brampton or abroad.
Parents should focus on four immediate priorities:
Act promptly. Delay can make it harder to locate the child, preserve evidence, and coordinate foreign enforcement.
Preserve documents. Keep orders, appeal decisions, passports, itineraries, messages, airline records, police reports, and all communications with the Central Authority.
Use the Hague Central Authority. Central Authority channels remain important before and after a return order.
Plan for coordinated enforcement. A return order may need follow-up through foreign counsel, local police, Canadian police, consular support, and related Ontario proceedings.
For families in Orangeville and Dufferin County, the practical work may be handled from 162 Broadway, Suite 8 while any Peel Region court file proceeds through the Davis Courthouse at 7755 Hurontario Street, Brampton. That local planning can matter when documents, sworn evidence, and urgent next steps have to move quickly.
What should Ontario parents do before international travel?
Parents should take five practical steps.
1. Obtain written consent or a court order
Before international travel, obtain clear written consent from the other parent. If consent is unavailable, seek a court order.
A passport or visitor authorization does not necessarily establish permission to relocate a child.
2. Preserve guardianship and travel documents
Keep copies of:
Passports.
Birth certificates.
Divorce judgments.
Parenting orders.
Separation agreements.
Foreign custody or guardianship documents.
School and medical records.
Travel itineraries.
Written consent communications.
Translated documents may be necessary.
3. Act promptly after a removal
Delay can create procedural and evidentiary difficulties. Contact the relevant Central Authority and seek advice from a lawyer familiar with Hague Convention child abduction proceedings.
Do not assume that a new school, new address, or new immigration application changes habitual residence immediately.
4. Assess the real Article 13 defences
A parent resisting return must connect the evidence to the child-specific legal test.
General concerns about another country may not be enough. Evidence should address the particular child, the alleged risk, available protections, parental conduct, and transition arrangements.
5. Separate return proceedings from custody merits
A Hague return hearing usually decides where parenting issues should be determined. It does not finally decide which parent should have custody.
That distinction matters in Ontario, Morocco, and other Hague Convention countries.
How can Orangeville and Dufferin County parents obtain help?
OMNI LAW GROUP’s primary regional hub is located at 162 Broadway, Suite 8, Orangeville.
The Orangeville base serves Mono, Mulmur, Melancthon, Amaranth, East Garafraxa, Shelburne, Caledon, Bolton, North Brampton, and Peel.
The location provides a stress-free alternative for North Peel residents, with Highway 10 and Highway 410 access, free parking, and rapid virtual intake.
The Orangeville Courthouse at 10 Louisa Street handles local Dufferin County matters. Court security lines can add time, particularly for urgent appearances. Parents should arrive early with identification and required documents.
Peel Region court cases are processed at 7755 Hurontario Street in Brampton, also known as the Davis Courthouse. Client preparation, document signing, and strategy sessions occur locally in Orangeville or through secure virtual appointments.
Our team provides coordinated family-law support for international custody, parenting, relocation, and Hague Convention matters. A Family Lawyer in Brampton can assist Peel families. A Criminal Defence Lawyer in Orangeville can assist where allegations of assault, harassment, or other criminal conduct overlap with parenting litigation.
Initial consultation, conflict check, and legal disclaimer
Complimentary 20-Minute Strategy Session: Call 905-497-7200.
OMNI LAW GROUP’s hours are Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
Before confidential facts are discussed, OMNI LAW GROUP must complete a conflict check. Contact information alone does not create a lawyer-client relationship.
This article provides general legal information. It is not legal advice. Hague Convention proceedings depend on the child’s circumstances, applicable foreign law, evidence, timing, and available remedies. No outcome is guaranteed. Urgent cross-border removals require prompt, case-specific legal advice.
For additional general information, review the OMNI LAW GROUP legal FAQ, family law services, and family law blog. Related Ontario relocation guidance is available in Parenting Exchanges & Relocation in Ontario.
Local Legal FAQ
What is a Hague Convention child abduction case in Ontario?
A Hague Convention case is a return proceeding involving a child allegedly wrongfully removed from or retained outside the child’s habitual residence. The court normally asks which country was the child’s habitual residence, whether the removal breached custody rights, and whether a Convention exception applies. The process is not a final custody hearing. It is designed to return the child to the appropriate jurisdiction for parenting issues. Ontario parents should gather travel records, court orders, consent communications, school information, and foreign-law documents immediately. Legal advice should be obtained promptly because timing and evidence can affect the available remedies.
Can a parent take a child from Ontario to Morocco without consent?
A parent should not relocate a child internationally without the other parent’s written consent or a court order. A short trip can also create disputes if the child is retained abroad beyond the agreed period. The existing parenting order, decision-making arrangement, passport terms, and the child’s habitual residence all matter. Morocco is a Hague Convention country, so an alleged wrongful removal may lead to return proceedings. Parents should obtain travel consent in writing, confirm the travel dates, share itinerary details, and address passport possession before departure. A child’s Canadian citizenship does not replace parental consent.
What should a parent do if a Hague return order is ignored?
If a Hague return order is ignored, act immediately. Preserve the order, appeal materials, travel records, messages, and proof of any missed handoff or airport date. Contact the Hague Central Authority, foreign counsel, and local police where appropriate. In some cases, Canadian police may also investigate parental abduction. Global Affairs Canada may provide consular assistance if the child is abroad, but consular officials cannot force a foreign court or police service to act. The next steps often require coordinated work across family proceedings, possible criminal processes, and local enforcement measures in the foreign country. This is general legal information, not legal advice.
Can a Hague return order be overturned on appeal in Ontario?
Yes. A Hague return order can be overturned on appeal if the appellate court finds a legal error in the analysis. In Maarif v. El Fazazi, 2026 ONCA 584, the Court of Appeal allowed the mother’s appeal, set aside the return order, and dismissed the father’s Hague application. The key issue was grave risk under Article 13(b). The court held that the evidence had to be assessed prospectively and cumulatively, not in isolated parts. For Ontario parents, that means a Hague case can turn on whether the full record shows enforceable protections and whether the combined evidence establishes a serious risk to the child.
Does a five-year-old child decide where to live?
A five-year-old child’s views may be considered. They are not automatically determinative. The court assesses whether the child has sufficient age and maturity, whether the objection is genuine, and whether the child understands the consequences. In Maarif v. El Fazazi, the court accepted Sabrine’s wish to remain in Canada with her mother. The child’s views mattered, but the appeal outcome turned on grave risk, habitual residence, and the Hague Convention framework rather than the child’s objection alone.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Rahul Kaushal is Co-founder of OMNI LAW GROUP. Rahul Kaushal is a member of the Law Society of Ontario. He provides practical legal information on family law, criminal law, parenting disputes, and the intersection of criminal and family proceedings in Ontario.