Second, the application judge did not commit a palpable and overriding error in finding that there was no shared parental intention. There was abundant evidence that the application judge considered which supported her finding on this issue. For instance, the parents brought most of their belongings and important possessions to Ontario and spent significant sums on home renovations in Ontario. The appellant suggests that the application judge should have placed more weight on other pieces of evidence, including pre-separation text messages and the immigration status of the children and the appellant. Yet it is not the role of this court to second-guess the weight the application judge gave to the pieces of the evidence which were before her: Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, at para. 23.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.