Law360 Canada ( September 24, 2026, 9:47 AM EDT) -- Appeal by claimant from order refusing to require the respondent to return the child to British Columbia, and cross-appeal by the respondent from orders finding that the Supreme Court had territorial competence and appointing the claimant as an interim guardian. The respondent returned to the Philippines with the child in 2024. In June 2025, the claimant filed a notice of family claim seeking appointment as an interim guardian and an order that the respondent return the child to Vancouver. The respondent sought a declaration that the child was habitually resident in the Philippines and that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction. The judge found that the claimant did not consent to the relocation of the child, that the child’s habitual residence remained Vancouver, and that the court had jurisdiction and should not decline to exercise it. The judge nevertheless concluded that it was in the child’s best interests to remain in the Philippines with the respondent and her family and establish a relationship with the claimant through video calls and in-person visits. The respondent argued on cross-appeal that the claimant was not a guardian when the child left British Columbia, the child had established a habitual residence in the Philippines, and the courts in the Philippines were the more appropriate forum. The claimant argued that the judge erred in refusing to order the child’s return, failed to properly consider the removal of the child from the jurisdiction, the effective enforcement of parenting orders, and his parental rights....