Matteo v Parodi (Canada 1997) Montreal Court of Appeal No. 500-09-005331-970 and 500-04-010889-971 9 International Abduction [CANADA 1997] ====================================================== COURT OF APPEAL PROVINCE OF QUEBEC MONTREAL REGISTRY No. 500-09-005331-970 (500-04-010889-971) On 07 Aug 1997 THE HONORABLE MORRIS J. FISH, J.A. (in Chambers) Maria Magdalena Matteo, Appellant v. Miguel Angel Parodi, Respondent And THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC, MIS EN CAUSE JUDGMENT 001 I am seized of two applications -- one for a stay, the other seeking provisional execution -- of a judgment of the Superior Court rendered by LeBel J. pursuant to the Act Respecting the Civil Aspects of International and Interprovincia1 Child Abduction. 002 Justice LeBel rendered judgment orally, in view of the urgency of the matter, on July 31, 1997; her detailed written reasons were filed on August 7. 003 In her written reasons, Justice LeBel noted: Devant le Tribunal, il est admis que la convention s'applique, c'est-a-dire qu'il s'agit d'un cas d'enlevement international d'enfants au sens de la convention, ce qui justifierait la demande de retour. De toute facon, les faits le demontrent. Madame etait autorisee a sortir l'enfant du pays pour une periode de trente jours ce qui impliquait evidemment, un retour en Argentine qui n'a pas eu lieu. Monsieur a done droit de demander retour. Madame invoque le deuxiime paragraphe de l'article 21 de la loi pour contester la demande de retour. Selon elle il existerait "un risque grave que le retour de ltenfant ne l'expose a un danger physique ou psychique, ou de toute autre maniere, ne le place dans une situation intolerable". Elle demande donc a la Cour superieure de refuser d'ordonner le retour de l'enfant. Les allegations a l'appui de cette demande vent un peu de la meme nature que celles que j'ai deja relatees: monsieur est un monstre et le retour placerait l'enfant dans une situation de danger ou dans une situation intolerable. 004 Justice LeRel did not believe the evidence given by Ms. Matteo, the appellant, in support of her submissions under s. 21 of the Act. 005 She found that the facts alleged had not been proven: Encore une fois, le Tribunal conclut que ces faits ne vent pas prouves. Dans certains cas, des temoignages ont ete carrement faux; dans d'autres, den incidents mineurs ant ete mantes en epingle. Il y a peut-etre eu des paroles ou des gestes regrettables. Si out, selon la preuve, ce vent des gestes ou des paroles qui se seraient adresses a madame ou a l'un ou l'autre de ses firs, Juan Diego ou Alfredo, et non a Geronimo. Or, dans ce cas-ci, la question qui se pose est la situation de Geronimo. La question est de savoir si Geronimo serait mis en danger ou en peril par un retour dans son pays natal, qui permettrait, du moins pour l'instant, un rapprochement avec son pere. Or, le Tribunal conclut que s'il analyse la situation du point de vue de Geronimo, il ne peut pas conclure qu'il existe un risque grave que le retour de l'enfant l'expose a un danger physique ou psychique ou, de toute autre maniere, le place dans une situation intolerable. 006 After considering the policy purposes of the Act and the international obligations which it aims to implement, FN 01 Justice LeBel ordered the immediate return of the child to Argentina. 007 On August 6, 1997, Justice LeBel delivered the following "Jugement de Correctlon": CONSIDERANT le jugement prononce a l'audience le 31 juillet 1997; CONSIDERANT le fait que, par inadvertence, ce jugement ne traite pas de la demande d'ordonner l'execution nonobstant appel; CONSIDERANT qu'il s'agit ici de la garde de l'enfant Geronimo Matteo Parodi; CONSIDERANT qu'il s'agit ici d'un cas d'urgence exceptionnelle parce qu'un retard dans l'execution de l'ordonnance serait tout a fait malsain pour l'enfant; CONSTDERANT qu'il serait approprie que l'enfant passe des vacances avec son pere et qu'il n'y a aucune raison de craindre que l'enfant ne soit pas ramene au Canada si un jugement l'ordonne; CONSIDERANT la requete verbale du procureur de monsieur Parodi et l'article 475 CPC; CONSIDERANT les circonstances de l'affaire; PAR CES MOTIFS, le tribunal ACCUEILLE la requete verbale; ORDONNE que les conclusions du jugement rendu le 31 juillet 1997 soient amendees pour y ajouter la conclusion suivante: ORDONNE l' execution provisoire nonobstant appel; SANS FRAIS 008 Arrangements have been made to ensure that the child, upon arriving in Argentina, will be greeted at the airport by an Argentinian judge having jurisdiction in the matter. 009 I am advised that arrangements have also been made enabling the appellant, who is the child's mother, to arrive in Argentina a few hours later. 010 As I said at the outset, there are two applications before me. The first, by appellant, seeks a stay of the order made by LeBel J.; the second, by respondent, seeks immediate execution of that order, notwithstanding the appeal. 011 Counsel for the parties and for the Attorney General, who have throughout the proceedings discharged their respective duties with skill, dignity and courtesy to one another and to the Court, agreed to have both applications dealt with together this morning. 012 At the conclusion of the hearing, I felt bound to decide that the judgment of the Superior Court should not be stayed. 013 The appellant has failed to demonstrate any evident weakness in that judgment. 014 The grounds she has raised relate essentially to findings of credibility with which appellate courts cannot interfere in the absence of manifest error. No such error has been shown. 015 There is no suggestion that the trial judge erred in her interpretation of the governing legal principles or, more particularly, in concluding that this is a case of child abduction within the meaning of the Act. 016 The appellant contends that the correction filed by the trial judge is of no legal effect, since the matter was by then already under appeal. This submission is based on the wording of article 475 C.C.P. and on article 549 an well. 017 I am prepared to assume that appellant's submission in this regard is well-founded, but think it right to note that the correction was made upon the express request of respondent and without objection, on jurisdictional grounds, by appellant. 018 In any event, by agreement of the parties, appellant's application for a stay and respondent's application for provisional execution were dealt with simultaneously before me. And, whatever the legal effect of the correction entered by the trial judge, my own jurisdiction to order provisional execution of the original judgment is not disputed. 019 As a matter of form, I have concluded that this jurisdiction should be exercised by allowing respondent's motion and dismissing appellant's motion, without costs in both instances. 020 I wish to add a further word to which I attach particular importance. 021 My judgment in this matter relates exclusively to the requirements of the Act under which respondent's application was made and to the international obligations assumed by Canada under the Convention to which I have referred. 022 These imperatives are set out in the preamble to the Act: WHEREAS the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction signed at the Hague on 25 October 1980 aims to protect children internationally from the harmful effects of their wrongful removal or retention; Whereas the convention establishes procedures to ensure the prompt return of children to the State of their habitual residence and to secure protection for rights of access; Whereas Quebec subscribes to the principles and rules set forth in the Convention and it is expedient to apply them to the largest possible number of cases; ... [Emphasis added.] 023 I refer as well to the explanatory notes accompanying the draft legislation (B111 72) on first reading: Ce projet de loi a pour objet d'assurer l'application au Quebec des principes et des regles de la Convention de la Haye du 25 octobre 1980 sur les aspects civils de l'enlevement international d'enfants. Il permettra en outre au gouvernement d'etendre l'application de ces principes et de ces regles sur une base de reciprocite a tout Etat province ou territoire designes par decret. Il vise a assurer qu'un enfant deplace ou retenu illicitement ratourn le plus tot possible dans le milieu on vlvait anterieurement sans chercher a regler le problem de l'attribution du droit de garde, afin que la situation de fait prevalent avant He deplacement ou le non-ratour illicite soit retablie rapidement. Il vise egalement assurer le respect du droit devisite. [Emphasis added.] 024 There is no real dispute that the child Geronimo was wrongfully removed from Argentina and is being retained in Canada in breach of the governing domestic law. Nor has any ground been made out for declining to return him promptly to the country from which he was removed. 025 In so ordering however I wish to make it perfectly clear that my decision is not intended to have any bearing on the underlying issues of custody. 026 Nor do I mean in any way to suggest that appellant ought never to be permitted to return to Canada, temporarily or permanently, with or without Geronimo. 027 Those issues remain to be resolved by other tribunals and according to criteria that do not apply here. MORRIS J. FISH, J.A. For the appellant: Marlye Monfiston Sonia Heyeur For the respondent: Real LeBlanc For the mis en cause: Jean-Frangois Boulais Dates of hearing: August 6 and 7. 1997 FOOT NOTES --------------------- 1. See the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, signed by Canada and more than 20 other countries at The Hague on October 25, 1980.