“Over the course of a three day trial, the application judge heard testimony from 8 witnesses and reviewed the written record containing 20 affidavits. As this court stated in A.M.R.I. v. K.E.R., 2011 ONCA 417, at para. 88,
A Hague application judge’s decision attracts considerable deference from this court … [A]ppellate review of a Hague decision is not a hearing de novo or an invitation to relitigate the matters determined on the application: Katsigiannis at para. 30; Korutowska-Wooff v. Wooff, 2004 CanLII 5548 (ON CA), [2004] O.J. No. 3256, 242 D.L.R. (4th) 385 (C.A.), at para. 10. But, the deference usually accorded to a Hague ruling is displaced where the Hague application judge applied the wrong legal principles or made unreasonable findings of fact: see Jabbaz v. Mouammar, 2003 CanLII 37565 (ON CA), [2003] O.J. No. 1616, 171 O.A.C. 102 (C.A.), at para. 36; Katsigiannis, at para. 31.”