Welcome to Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t! This week, lawyer Kyla Lee discusses whether Canadian courts should recognize changes in technology in child custody disputes, in cases where one parent wants to move with the children.
Acumen Law Corporation lawyer Kyla Lee gives her take on a made-in-Canada court case each week, and discusses why these cases should have been heard by Canada’s highest court: the Supreme Court of Canada.
The law allows parents who are separated but share custody of children to move to different jurisdictions with permission from the other parent or with permission from the court.
Such an example occurred in S.D. v. S.M., where one of the parents was a French national and the other was a Canadian. They had a son together, but ended their relationship due to their differences. The French parent wanted to back to France, since she had job opportunities there, and she wanted to bring the child with her. The Canadian parent did not want the child to move.
The question brought to the Supreme Court of Canada was whether changes in technology that allow parents to still have meaningful relationships with children abroad should be recognized in these disputes. Digital technology now permits practically constant communication through electronic devices, so should there still be significant hurdles for parents who want to move away with their family members?
Check out the video for more.
See more:
Kyla’s videos
Follow Kyla on Twitter
Kyla Lee’s website