The Respondent relies on section 6 of the Divorce Act, and says that it provides that the jurisdiction to hear the proceedings lies in the province where the child of the marriage most substantially connected. Moreover, Rule 5 of the Family Law Rules provides that in a case dealing with custody of or access to a child, it shall be started in the municipality where the child ordinarily resides. The Respondent urges the court to apply the “most substantial connection test” as set out in Harrington v. McDermott, 2010 Carswell BC 947 (Sup.Ct.) at para 3 to the fundamental issue of jurisdiction. In other words, the Respondent urges the court to determine a) with which province the child is most substantially connected; b) whether the transfer is in the best interests of the child; and c) whether a transfer would impede the proper administration of justice. Accordingly, his submissions on the motion have been focused on those issues. Analysis
"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.