Can historical evidence be admitted to the second stage of the enquiry?

To decide this issue, I turn to the language of the majority reasons in Gordon v. Goertz as set out, in part, earlier in this decision. On my interpretation of the majority reasons, or for that matter in the ratios of the other decisions relied upon by the appellant, there is nothing in the words used to support the submission of the appellant that there is an absolute prohibition against admitting historical evidence to decide the second stage of the enquiry. On the contrary, I think it is plain from the reasons that once the threshold inquiry has been satisfied, the entire focus for the court turns to the best interests of the child test. In my opinion, in applying the test all relevant evidence, including historical evidence, that informs the trial judge’s analysis may be admitted and assigned weight on the issue.