Law360 Canada ( November 14, 2024, 2:33 PM EST) -- Motion by Appellant mother ("Appellant") to stay an order for the child's return to Bangladesh. Motion by Respondent father ("Respondent") requiring Appellant to post security for costs for her appeal. The parties travelled to Canada with their child for a vacation. During their stay, the Appellant desired to remain in the country permanently by seeking asylum, which the Respondent opposed. The Appellant filed a refugee application which led to an argument, prompting the mother to call the police and make allegations against the father, resulting in criminal charges against him. The Respondent filed an urgent motion for their child's return to Bangladesh and initiated custody proceedings in Bangladesh. The Appellant caused delays in the hearing by refusing to serve or file responding materials and requesting multiple adjournments. The motion judge denied further adjournments and ordered the child’s return to Bangladesh finding that the Appellant had not filed any response to the father's motion, that the child was born and raised in Bangladesh, the lack of evidence that the child would suffer serious harm if returned to Bangladesh and the filing of refugee claim in Canada for the Appellant and her child without the Respondent's consent. The Appellant argued that, based on the M.A.A. v. D.E.M.E. case, no return order should be made when a refugee claim was pending, even if the claim lacked merit. However, the motion judge noted that the Appellant provided no evidence to support the merits of her refugee claim. He held that the M.A.A. v. D.E.M.E. case did not establish a blanket rule prohibiting return orders in the face of a pending refugee claim. Further, the motion judge found that case factually different, as it involved evidence of serious harm from an abusive relationship, which was not present in this case. Meanwhile, the Respondent sought an order that would require the Appellant to post security for costs for the proceeding, including her appeal as he claimed that the Appellant did not have any assets in Canada to pay the costs of the proceeding below or of the appeal....