In their submissions, counsel for the parties went into significant detail about how much time P. was spending with each of the mother and the father, and sought corroboration in such other evidence as the child’s school reading log. However, for the purposes of this application, I find that there was effectively a shared custody arrangement between the parties and that P. spent roughly equal amounts of time with each, especially over the last couple of years. Counsel for the parties each tried to make the case that their client was the primary caregiver and that this should figure prominently in the argument about where the child should principally reside. However, I am unable to conclude that either party was a primary caregiver or custodial parent. And even if I could make that conclusion on the facts, there would be no legal presumption in favour of that parent for this reason: see Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27; (1996), 134 D.L.R. (4th) 321, at paragraph 49.
"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.