翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Gordon's Hill ・ Gordon's Olympia Theatre (Boston) ・ Gordon's School ・ Gordon's sign ・ Gordon's syndrome ・ Gordon's War ・ Gordon, Alabama ・ Gordon, Ashland County, Wisconsin ・ Gordon Tucker (footballer) ・ Gordon Tullock ・ Gordon Tumilson ・ Gordon Turk ・ Gordon Turlick ・ Gordon Turner ・ Gordon United Church, Reserve Mines ・ Gordon v Goertz ・ Gordon v Selico ・ Gordon v. Gordon ・ Gordon V. Smith ・ Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc. ・ Gordon Valley ・ Gordon Van Gelder ・ Gordon Van Tighem ・ Gordon Van Tol ・ Gordon Van Wylen ・ Gordon Vance ・ Gordon Vaughn ・ Gordon Vejprava ・ Gordon Vuong ・ Gordon W. Bowie Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Gordon v Goertz ： ウィキペディア英語版 Gordon v Goertz ''Gordon v Goertz'' is a 1996 Supreme Court of Canada decision dealing with issues surrounding parental relocation. == Prior caselaw == Prior to the 1990 decision of Carter v. Brooks〔(1991), 30 R.F.L. (3d) 53 (Ont. C.A.)〕 the general view of Canadian courts was that a custodial parent could move with the child unless the access parent could show that the move was harmful to the child.〔Landry v. Lavers (1985), 45 R.F.L. (2d) 235 (Ont. C.A.) and Beck v. Beck, () 2 W.W.R. 1175 (B.C.C.A).〕 In Carter v. Brooks the Ontario Court of Appeal changed this approach. Instead of having a presumption in favor of the custodial parent, the court held that a move would only be allowed if it was in the best interests of the child. The court rejected putting an onus on either party because it thought that the best interests of the child would best be determined if there were no starting presumptions. The interests of the custodial parent would only be relevant as far as they impacted the interests of the child. Carter made it more difficult for custodial parents to move with their children. In Ontario, the result was that only 60% of moves were allowed.〔D.A. Rollie Thompson, "Movin' On: Parental Relocation in Canada" (2004) 42(3) Fam. Ct. Rev. 398 at 403〕 This case was followed in B.C. and the effect in B.C. was likely similar. The law in Ontario was changed following the decision in MacGyver v. Richards〔(1995), 22 O.R. 3d 481 (C.A.).〕 where the court did not reject the best interests of the child test in Carter, but in essence held that there was a presumption that the move was in the best interests of the child. The court recognized the difficulty courts faced in determining the best interests of the child and felt that the custodial parent was usually in a better position to do so. Further, the court found that the interests of the child and custodial parent were linked. The decision led to parents in Ontario being allowed to move with much more frequency.〔D.A. Rollie Thompson, “Beam Us Up Scotty: Parents and Children on the Trek" (1995-96) 13 C.F.L.Q.〕 But it caused confusion across Canada regarding the test to be applied in mobility cases. Some provinces followed MacGyver,〔E.g. Manitoba: Lapointe v. Lapointe, () 10 W.W.R. 609 (Man. C.A.).〕 but B.C. did not.〔Manore v. Manore (1995), 67 B.C.A.C. 259.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Gordon v Goertz」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.