What is the test for establishing a domicile of origin?

But the facts must be viewed from the correct legal framework. I have concluded that the correct legal framework includes the application of certain principles that may have not previously been clear from the authorities. I repeat them in this summary: 1. The lex fori is to be applied in domicile cases. Reference to the laws of jurisdictions other than the lex fori, to see if domicile there has been abandoned or lost, is inappropriate. 2. The civil onus - the balance of probabilities - is the correct standard to apply in domicile cases. There is no intermediate or quasi-criminal standard to prove the displacement of the domicile of origin. To the extent that the domicile of origin is “difficult to replace”, that difficulty must be determined in accordance with the normal civil standard on the party seeking to establish that the domicile of origin has been replaced. Similarly, whether a change of domicile involves a relocation within or between countries is irrelevant, as are the language, climate, ethnic, cultural or religious characteristics of the different possible domiciles. 3. Any analysis of domicile in the 21st century must reflect the “global village” reality of modern life. Domicile now has much more to do with the economic realities of one’s life than it does with sentiment or loyalty to one’s place of origin. 4. Requiring an intention that a domicile of choice be the place where one intends to reside for the rest of one’s life, or to end one’s days there, overstates the necessary intention. Rather, the intention is accurately described in Udny v. Udny: “not for a limited period”. There is a key difference between “indefinite” and “permanent”, and indefinite residence is sufficient to establish domicile. 5. A period of residence is indefinite unless that period of residence has either a pre-determined end point, or the resident has clear and identified criteria on which that residency will end. 6. Where one has multiple residences, domicile will be found to be at the “chief” or “principal” residence. Identification of the “chief” or “principal” residence is best conducted by reference to tangible factors including economic considerations, rather than on sentiment. Relevant factors include: a) whether the residence is used for business, holiday or vacation purposes, b) the relative amounts of time spent in each residence, c) the scale and the presence of personal property, d) the presence of family members, particularly spouses and dependants, e) a pattern of return to that residence, f) the economic linkage of the person to that residence, g) legal relationships to a jurisdiction, h) official identification and documentation, i) whether the residence is the contact point for a person, and j) by a person’s social integration with the community in which the residence is located. 7. A common-law judge has a residual authority to depart from the revival of the domicile of origin to avoid an absurd result. 16. Costs