Menzies J refused to characterize the case as a mobility one, for he concluded that the parties did not live in the same province when they were before him and, the mother had already moved. I think it matters not what label one attaches to the case, for the test is what is in the best interests of these children. The criteria from the Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27; (1996). 19 R.F.L. (4th) S.C.C. case are helpful whether one uses the label “mobility” or not, for call it what you will, the mother’s proposal would see the children miles away from their father.
"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.