The plaintiff submits that the authorities on mobility are of assistance in considering the issue of the best interests of children when parents reside in different locations. She refers to para. 48 of Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27: While a legal presumption in favour of the custodial parent must be rejected, the views of the custodial parent, who lives with the child and is charged with making decisions in its interest on a day-to-day basis, are entitled to great respect and the most serious consideration. The decision of the custodial parent to live and work where he or she chooses is likewise entitled to respect, barring an improper motive reflecting adversely on the custodial parent’s parenting ability.
"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.