Does the chambers judge apply the tender years doctrine?

A fair reading of the chambers judge’s reasons do not support the contention that he applied the tender years doctrine. His analysis was conducted with specific reference to Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27, 134 D.L.R. (4th) 321. Nor did the chambers judge fail to consider the maximum contact principle. To the contrary, he expressed concern over the effect of the respondent’s move to Winnipeg on the appellant’s access rights and reserved that issue to allow for discussion between the parties and for further submissions. Ultimately, he gave written reasons for specifying a thoughtful, detailed and thorough parenting plan.