The Gordon v. Goertz Case
Introduction
In the complex landscape of parenting cases, mobility rights stand out as particularly intricate. These rights pertain to the privilege of a custodial parent to relocate with the child, a move which could potentially impact the access rights of the other parent. The Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in the landmark case Gordon v. Goertz (1996) established a clear and comprehensive test to ascertain the best interest of the child in mobility cases.
The Gordon v. Goertz Test: Unpacking the Steps
The Supreme Court, in the Gordon v. Goertz case, articulated a series of steps to be adhered to in mobility cases. The process commences with the parent proposing the move demonstrating a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child. Once this change is established, a renewed examination of what is in the child's best interests ensues. This assessment takes into account all relevant facets of the child's needs and the capacity of the parents to fulfill them. The crux of this analysis is the child's best interests, not the rights or interests of the parents. The existing custody and access arrangements, the child's views, potential disturbances as a result of a change in custody or relocation, and the custodial parent's reasons for moving all play a crucial role in this evaluation.
Additional Considerations:
While the Gordon v. Goertz test offers a solid structure, additional layers have been added to the decision-making process in mobility cases through subsequent case law. Identifying the custodial parent is pivotal, particularly in scenarios where an initial custody decision is being made concurrently. Even though there is no legal presumption favouring the custodial parent, their perspectives are accorded substantial respect and serious consideration. The potential repercussions for the child if the custodial parent is either restricted from relocating or permitted to do so also bear significance. For example, if a relocating parent is seeking better job opportunities, the child may reap financial benefits and enjoy a happier custodial parent.
Application in Subsequent Cases
The Gordon v. Goertz test has been extensively cited and employed in subsequent mobility cases, indicative of its comprehensive approach to safeguarding the child's best interests. For instance, in the case of Porter v. Bryan (2017), the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the lower court and identified the mother as the primary caregiver, notwithstanding a joint custody order. This ruling emphasized the importance of scrutinizing the actual day-to-day responsibilities of each parent when determining the primary caregiver.
Conclusion
Navigating the intricate terrain of child custody mobility rights can be daunting. The Gordon v. Goertz test, complemented by subsequent case law, offers a clear and exhaustive roadmap for such cases. While each case carries its unique set of circumstances, the overarching factor is the best interests of the child, the guiding principle in every decision. Therefore, having a firm grasp of the factors and considerations in these cases is of paramount importance for parents, lawyers, and judges alike.
THIS BLOG IS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF LAILNA DHALIWAL LLP.
The Content is offered free of charge strictly on an "as is" basis and is intended to provide users with general information only. Lailna Dhaliwal LLP does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, completeness or fitness of the Content for any particular purpose.
The material provided on the Lailna Dhaliwal LLP/JSDLAW PC website is not intended to provide legal advice or opinions of any kind, and does not constitute legal advice.
No one should act, or refrain from acting, based solely upon the materials provided on this website, without first seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice.
Sending or receiving of these materials does not create a lawyer-client relationship.
Do not provide any confidential information to Lailna Dhaliwal LLP unless and until we have given you a written retainer agreement confirming that we can represent you.