The Meaning of "Ordinary Residence" and "Habitual Residence" in the Common Law Provinces in a Family Law Context

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents

Endnotes

• [1]   RSM 1987 c. D 96.
• [2]   RSO 1990 c. C-12 s. 22.
• [3]   E.g. Children's Law Act 1997 SS 1997 c. C-8.2 s. 15.
• [4]   RSC 1985 c. D- 3 ss. 3, 4, & 5.
• [5]   Whicker v. Hume (1858) 7 H.L. Cas. 124 at p. 160.
• [6]   RSO 1990 c. F-3.
• [7]   See Gordon v. Goertz (1996) 19 RFL (4th) 177 (SCC).
• [8]   C.f. Brooks v. Brooks (1998) 39 RFL (4th) 187 (OCA).
• [9]   E.g. Woodhouse v. Woodhouse (1996) 20 RFL (4th) 337 (OCA).
• [10]   Bedard v. Bedard 2004 CarswellSask 494 (SCA)(trial judge finding acquiescence to move in father's actions; Court of Appeal disagreeing and concluding no clear acquiescence); Hunter v. Hunter 2005 SKQB 93 (SQB) (acquiescence or implied consent to move by father).
• [11]   See as to case law on point McLeod and Mamo Annual Review of Family Law 2004 (Carswell) pp. 72-83
• [12]   Macrae v. Macrae [1949] P. 397 at 403; Lewis v. Lewis [1956] 1 WLR 200; Cullen v. Cullen (1969) 9 DLR (3d) 610 (NSTD); Nowlan v. Nowlan (1971) 2 RFL 67 (NSTD).
• [13]   [1990] 2 AC 562 (HL).
• [14]   See Hardy v. Hardy (1969) 7 DLR (3d) 307 (OHC); Marsellus v. Marsellus (1970) 13 DLR (3d) 383 (BCSC); Norton v. Norton (1970) 14 DLR (3d) 639 (NSSC); Cuzner v. Cuzner (1971) 15 RFL (3d) 511 (NSSC)-concept implying physical presence and some degree of habitude. See also Mendes da Costa "Some Comments on the Divorce Act" (1968) 46 Can. Bar Rev. 252-need for regular physical presence.
• [15]   See Droit de la famille-360 1987 CarswellQue 927 (Que.SC) (court relying on common law cases interpreting "ordinarily resident" to interpret "réside habituellement".
• [16]   E.g. Thomson v. MNR [1946] 2 DTC 812 @ p. 817; Levene v. Inland Revenue Commrs [1928] A.C. 217 (HL).
• [17]   Helman v. Brown (1969) 2 DLR (3d) 715, 718-719 (BCSC); Blackwell v. England (1857) 120 ER 202, 204.
• [18]   Re Walker and Walker (1970) 3 OR 771 (HCJ).
• [19]   See Hernadi and Minister of Health (1986) 34 DLR (4th) 145 (BCCA); Adderson v. Adderson (1987) 36 DLR (4th) 631 (ACA).
• [20]   Mendes da Costa "some Comments on the Divorce Act" (1968) 46 Can. Bar Rev. 252 at 272. See also Stransky v. Sgtransky [1954] 2 All ER 536; Hopkins v. Hopkins [1950] 2 All ER 1035-no need for physical presence during periods of "residence" or "ordinary residence".
• [21]   C.f. Re Koo [1993] 1 FTD 286-residence to be distinguished from "stay" or "visit".
• [22]   [1993] 1 FTD 286.
• [23]   RSC 1985 c. C-29, s. 5(1)(c).
• [24]   (1987) 36 DLR (4th) 631 (ACA). See also Collins, Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws 13th ed. (2000) p. 149.
• [25]   Re J. (A Minor) (Abduction) [1990] 2 AC 562; M. v. M. (Abduction: England and Scotland) [1997] 2 FLR 263 (CA); Re A (Abduction: Habitual Residence) [1998] 1 FLR 497.
• [26]   Re M (Minors) (Residence Order: Jurisdiction) [1993] 1 FLR 495 (CA).
• [27]   [1998] AC 750 (HL).
• [28]   (1996) 19 RFL (4th) 177 (SCC).
• [29]   [1991] 2 AC 476 (HL) at p. 578.
• [30]   [1990] 2 AC 562 (HL).
• [31]   RSO 1990 c. C-12 s. 22(2) (custody jurisdiction based on habitual residence). see also Children's Law Act SS 1997 s. 15(2) (jurisdiction in custody proceedings).
• [32]   RSO 1990 c. 15 (property distribution governed by last common habitual residence).
• [33]   Cruse v. Chittum [1974] 2 All E.R. 940 (QB)("habitual" a reference more to the quality than duration of residence).
• [34]   Ibid. see also Adderson v. Adderson (1987) 36 DLR (4th) 631 (ACA) where Laycraft C.J.A. accepted Lane J's comments.
• [35]   E.g. Dicey and Morris, The Conflict of Laws, 10th ed. (1980) pp. 144-5; Cheshire and North Private International Law, 10th ed. (1979) p.187; McLeod Conflict of Laws (1983) p. 180; Graveson, Conflict of Laws, 7th ed. P. 194, Castel, Canadian Conflict of Laws, 4th ed. P. 110.
• [36]   Supra footnote 14.
• [37]   Cheshire and North's Private International Law, 12th ed. (1992).
• [38]   L. Collins, AV Dicey and JHC Morris, Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws, 12th ed. (1993).
• [39]   [1991] FCR 632 (reversed on the facts [1992] 1 FCR 541 (FCA).
• [40]   C.f. Haig v. Canada; Haig v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) [1993] 2 SCR 995 per Cory J-interpretation of residence as it pertained to right to vote.
• [41]   CCSM c. D96.
• [42]   The Law of Domicile (Law Com. 168) paras 3.5-3.8.
• [43]   C.f. Hack v. Hack (1976) 6 Fam. Law 177; Re J. (A Minor) (Abduction) [1990] 2 AC 562; W. and B. v. H. (Child Abduction: Surrogacy) [2002] 1 FLR 1008 (HC)-(in exceptional case even child could have no habitual residence).
• [44]   Commissioner, Western Australia Police v. Dorman (1997) FLC 92-766. Having said this, most courts reject the idea that a child can have more than one habitual residence at a time for custody purposes but can have revolving residences if the parents share custody on a more or less equal parenting basis: Re A. (Abduction: Habitual Residence) [1998] 1 FLR 497 (HC).
• [45]   E.g. Cameron v. Cameron 1996 S.C. 17 where the court made clear that the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction was dependant on the principle that a child could only have one habitual residence at a time.
• [46]   See Re S. [1998] AC 750; Re J. [1990] 2 AC 562; Hunter v. Hunter 2005 SKQB 93 (SQB); Bedard v. Bedard 2004 SKCA 101 (SCA); Brooks v. Brooks (1998) RFL (4th) (OCA).
• [47]   See Krisko v. Krisko, supra.
• [48]   27 Jan. 2000, doc. Simcoe 4216/99 (OGD) appeal dismissed (2000) 137 OAC 7 (CA). See also Baker v. Arthurs (1994) 124 Nfld & PEIR 69 (Nfld. CA) children habitually resident in Ontario for deciding jurisdiction under Newfoundland Children's Law Reform Act where lived with parents and parents intended to live there indefinitely before separation.
• [49]   RSBC 1996 c. 128.
• [50]   Which incorporate the provisions of the Uniform Custody Legislation adopted in many common law provinces.
• [51]   E.g. Petnehazi v. Kresz [1999] BCJ No. 1238 (SC) and Hewstan v. Hewstan 2001 BCSC 368.
• [52]   Contrast Medhurst v. Markle (1995) 26 O.R. (3d) 178 (OGD) (judge rejecting view different interpretations of habitual residence applied under local custody legislation and Hague Convention).
• [53]   [1994] 3 SCR 551, at page 603.
• [54]   RSM 1987 c. 360.
• [55]   Contrast Re S. [1998] AC 750 (HL) where the House of Lords decided the child was habitually resident in England under local custody legislation and then ordered the return of the child under the Convention because the child was wrongfully detained in Ireland from its place of habitual residence.
• [56]   See Lord Slynn's comments in Re S. (Custody: Habitual Residence) [1998] AC 750 (HL) to a similar effect in proceedings under the Convention where the child was removed by his grandmother from England to Ireland.
• [57]   2004 SKCA 101 (SCA).
• [58]   Which incorporated the Uniform Legislation as in British Columbia and in Ontario.
• [59]   22 Nov. 2004 doc 667/03 (OSCJ).
• [60]   Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws ed Collins 13th ed (2000) at pa. 149.
• [61]   See R.(B) v. C. (LRS) 2001 CarswellBC 1161 (BCCA) (court reviewing concepts of habitual residence and wrongful removal).
• [62]   Gordon v. Goertz (1996) 19 RFL (4th) 177 (SCC).
• [63]   Thomson v. Thomson (1994) 3 SCR 551 (SCC).
• [64]   See cases discussed in McLeod and Mamo, Annual Review of Family Law 2004 (Carswell) pp. 23-24.
• [65]   E.g. Re J. (A Minor) (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1990] 2 AC 562 (HL).
• [66]   C. (DM) v. W. (DL) (2001) 15 RFL (5th) 35 (BCCA)(mother with joint custody ordered to return child).
• [67]   Clearly if the local court is dealing with a court order from another country, it would be a question of foreign law whether the shared parenting arrangement carried a right to participate in deciding where the child would live but a local court would not assume a right to unilaterally change residence.
• [68]   Supra footnote 57.
• [69]   Thorne v. Dryden-Hall (1997) 28 RFL (4th) 297 (BCCA).
• [70]   See Thomson v. Thomson, supra where the court suggested there was a difference between such a restriction in an interim and a final order.
• [71]   Contrast the results on the facts in Bedard v. Bedard 2004 SKCA 101 (SCA) and Hunter v. Hunter 2005 SKQB 93 (SQB) applying same legal analysis.
• [72]   See Brooks v. Brooks (1998) 39 RFL (4th) 187 (OCA) (court erring assuming jurisdiction where child removed from Manitoba to Ontario); Bedard v. Bedard, supra (no clear and compelling evidence of agreement or acquiescence).
• [73]   (2001) 21 RFL (5th) 247 (OSCJ).
• [74]   2001 BCCA 276 (BCCA).
• [75]   United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 9 January 2001.
• [76]   In part III of his reasons Kozinski C.J. relies on English cases and texts.
• [77]   [1996] RDF 512 (Que.SC) (children living continuously with both parents and attending school in California for three years).
• [78]   2004 ABQB 74 (AQB). See also Proia v. Proia 2003 ABQB 576 (AQB) where Rooke J. held that the parents and children became habitually resident in Alberta after they sold their home in France and moved to Alberta and signed a residential lease. That the parents separated a short time later and the father returned to France did not change the children's habitual residence. Again the court seemed satisfied that the parents and children acquired a habitual residence in Alberta upon their arrival given the parents' decision to relocate.
• [79]   2001 BCCA 276 (BCCA).
• [80]   22 Nov. 2004 doc 667/03 (OSCJ).
• [81]   This was the same argument, albeit in more formal form, that the BCCA accepted as a matter of law in Chan v. Chow, supra.
• [82]   2001 BCCA 276 (BCCA).
• [83]   (1995) 26 OR (3d) 178 (OGD).
• [84]   (1991) 31 RFL (3d) 354 (MQB).
• [85]   (2001) 16 RFL (5th) 173 (MCA).
• [86]   2004 MBQB 198 (MQB).
• [87]   LL.D, Professeur titulaire, Faculty of Law, University of Montréal.
• [88]   C.f. Droit de la Famille-3713 [2000] QJ Np. 2967 (QCA) discussed by Prof Goldstein.
• [89]   The Domicile and Habitual Residence Act, s. 9(2). The only case I could find expressly referring to s. 9(2) of the Act was L. (TI) v. F. (JL) (2001) 16 RFL (5th) 173 (MCA) where the Court accepted that the test applied under provincial legislation but provided no further insight.
• [90]   See Re Gutierrez; Ex parte Gutierrez (1879) 11 Ch. D. 298 (CA); Re Hacquard; Ex parte Hacquard (1889) 24 QBD 71 (CA); Re Akt. Robersfors & Societe anonyme des Papeteries de l'Aa [1910] 2 KB 727.
• [91]   Hardy v. Hardy (1969) 7 DLR (3d) 307 (OHC); Girardin v. Giardin (1974) 42 DLR (3d) 294 (SQB). Nielsen v. Nielsen (1971) 16 DLR (3d) 33 (OHC).
• [92]   [1951] 2 DLR 657 (PC). See also Lussier v. Lussier (1977) 3 RFL (2d) 335 (ODC).
• [93]   E.g. Firestone v. Firestone, (1978) 7 RFL (2d) 93 (ODC); Harnish v. Harnish (1977) 4 RFL (2d) 105 (SQB).
• [94]   E.g. Hardy v. Hardy [1969] 2 OR 875 (HCJ); Marsellus v. Marsellus (1970) 13 DLR (3d) 383 (BCSC); Davies v. Davies (1980) 29 NBR (2d) 207 (QB); Stransky v. Stransky [1954] P. 428 at p. 437.
• [95]   See Hopkins v. Hopkins [1951] P. 116 at 122 where Picher J. opined that a person could not be ordinarily resident in two places at one time.
• [96]   E.g. Nowlan v. Nowlan (1971) 2 RFL 67 (NSTD); Marsellus v. Marsellus (1970) 13 DLR (3d) 383 (BCSC).
• [97]   See Girardin v. Girardin et al (1974) 2 WWR 180 (SQB); Penner v. Penner (1986) 39 Man. R. (2d) 237 (QB).
• [98]   Re Chester (1975) 62 DLR (3d) 367 (BCSC); Re Landry and Lavers (1985) 17 DLR (4th) 190 (OCA).
• [99]   Nielsen v. Nielsen (1970) 16 DLR (3d) 33, 37-39(OHCJ); Re Ritchie and Ritchie (1974) 5 OR (2d) 520 (CA); Re Firestone and Firestone (1978) 90 DLR (3d) 742 (ODC); Harnish v. Harnish (1977) 4 RFL (2d) 105 (SQB).
• [100]   [1965] Ch. 568 at 585-86 (CA). Lord Denning's view of the law was accepted in Re Walker and Walker [1970] 3 OR 771 at 774-75; Nielsen v. Nielsen [1971] 1 OR 541 at 546; Harnish v. Harnish supra; and Manning v. Warford (1979) 9 RFL (2d) 153.
• [101]   Doucet v. Doucet (1974) 47 DLR (3d) 22 (OCC); Hardy v. Hardy supra; Nowlan v. Nowlan, supra; Bryn v. Mackin (1983) 32 RFL (2d) 207 (QSC).
• [102]   Hardy v. Hardy, supra; Wood v. Wood, (1969) 2 DLR (3d) 527 (MQB); Doucet v. Doucet (1974) 47 DLR (3d) 22 (OCC).
• [103]   Krisko v. Krisko supra; Marsellus v. Marsellus, supra; Zoldester v. Zoldsester (1974) 42 DLR(3d) 316 (bcsc); Graves v. Graves (1973) 36 DLR (3d) 637 (NSTD). Contrast Nowlan v. Nowlan supra where the intention to return was more concrete.
• [104]   E.g. Thomson v. MNR [1946] SCR 209; Schujhan v. MNR [1962] Ex. CR 328..
• [105]   E.g. Stransky v. Stransky, supra; Hopkins v. Hopkins, supra.
• [106]   MacPherson v. MacPherson (1976) 28 RFL 106 (OCA); Trotter v. Trotter (1992) 40 RFL (3d) 68 (OGD).
• [107]   Wood v. Wood (1987) 4 RFL M(2d) 182 (PEITD); Jablonowski v. Jablonowski (1972) 8 RFL 36 (OSC).
• [108]   Moggey v. Lawler 2004 MBQB 198 (MQB).
• [109]   Hardy v. Hardy, supra; Wood v. Wood, supra; Marsellus v. Marsellus, supra.
• [110]   See Marsellus v. Marsellus (1970) 2 RFL 53 (BCSC); Byrn v. Mackin (1983) 32 RFL (2d) 207 (QSC).
• [111]   Krisko v. Krisko, supra; Milles v. Butt (1990) 82 Nfld. & PEIR 42 (Nfld UFC).
• [112]   MacPherson v. MacPherson (1976) 28 RFL 106 (OCA).
• [113]   See Wood v. Wood (1987) 4 RFL 2d) 182 (PEITD); Jablonowski v. Jablonowski (1972) 8 RFL 36 (OSCJ).
• [114]   1998 ABQB 476 (AQB).
• [115]   [1996] O.J. No. 2601 (OGD).
• [116]   [1946] SCR 209.
• [117]   [1969] 2 OR 875 (HC).
• [118]   (1976) 28 RFL 106 (OCA).
• [119]   (1982) 30 RFL (2d) 107 (AQB).
• [120]   [1990] BCJ No. 50 (BCSC).
• [121]   (1990) 30 RFL (3d) 293 (NBQB).
• [122]   [1996] AJ No. 696 (AQB).
• [123]   1987 CarswellQue 927 (Que. SC).
• [124]   See Cruse v. Chittum [1974] 2 All ER 940 (QB).
• [125]   This follows from adopting the test used under the Income Tax Act in cases like Thomson v. MNR [1946] SCR 209 in cases such as Hardy v. Hardy [1969] 2 OR 875 and Marsellus v. Marsellus (1970) 13 DLR 383 (BCSC).
• [126]   Clearwater J. seemed to treat the terms as interchangeable in Moggey v. Lawler 2004 MBQB 198 (MQB).
• [127]   For example in Hunter v. Hunter 2005 SKQB 93 (SQB) Wright J. found the child habitually resident under provincial legislation and the spouse ordinarily resident in the province under the Divorce Act as if the parent's habitual and ordinary residence were one and the same.
• [128]   Except in Manitoba where The Domicile and Habitual Residence Act RSM 1987 c. D 96 treats the two terms as the same with a new statutory definition that is slightly different than the definition for either that developed in the case law.

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents