Counsel for the respondent initially suggested that this case should be dealt with as a mobility case, and that the principles established by Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27, 141 Sask.R. 241 should be applied. In his brief, counsel conceded that although this was not technically a mobility case, but suggested that the court had a wide discretion, and should be guided by the factors outlined in the leading mobility cases. He proposed in this context that I take account of factors other than those listed in The Children’s Law Act.
"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.