F. v. N., 2022 SCC 51

JurisdictionFederal Jurisdiction (Canada)
JudgeWagner, Richard; Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Côté, Suzanne; Brown, Russell; Rowe, Malcolm; Martin, Sheilah; Kasirer, Nicholas; Jamal, Mahmud
Citation2022 SCC 51
Docket Number39875
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Date02 December 2022
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
27 practice notes
  • M.A.B. v. M.G.C., 2022 ONSC 7207
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • December 22, 2022
    ...the best interests of the child (Young v. Young, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3 (S.C.C.), at paras. 74 and 202; Gordon, at pp. 50, 54, 68; F. v. N. 2022 SCC 51 (S.C.C.), at para. 61).  As the Supreme Court of Canada stated in King v. Low, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 87 (S.C.C.), at para. 101, the ultimate aim ......
  • Mog v Cog,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • January 19, 2023
    ...existence and that some evidence about that situation was revealed to Yungwirth J. 6 Can. T.S. 1983 No. 35. 7 Compare, for example, F v N, 2022 SCC 51 at paras 99, 110, 121 (majority) and 171 (dissent), 78 RFL (8th) 253. 8 Taking judicial notice of Court records is even older than The Queen......
  • MOG v COG,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • January 19, 2023
    ...and that some evidence about that situation was revealed to Yungwirth J. [6] Can. T.S. 1983 No. 35. [7] Compare, for example, F v N, 2022 SCC 51 at paras 99, 110, 121 (majority) and 171 (dissent), 78 RFL (8th) [8] Taking judicial notice of Court records is even older than The Queen v. Jones......
  • Tsiriotakis v Rizzo,
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • April 21, 2024
    ...child: Young v. Young, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3, at pp. 99, 117; Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27, at paras. 28, 37, and 50; and F. v. N., 2022 SCC 51, at para. 100 These motions seek temporary parenting orders pending trial. This is a consent court ordered review that was required to take pla......
  • Get Started for Free
21 cases
  • M.A.B. v. M.G.C., 2022 ONSC 7207
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • December 22, 2022
    ...the best interests of the child (Young v. Young, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3 (S.C.C.), at paras. 74 and 202; Gordon, at pp. 50, 54, 68; F. v. N. 2022 SCC 51 (S.C.C.), at para. 61).  As the Supreme Court of Canada stated in King v. Low, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 87 (S.C.C.), at para. 101, the ultimate aim ......
  • Mog v Cog,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • January 19, 2023
    ...existence and that some evidence about that situation was revealed to Yungwirth J. 6 Can. T.S. 1983 No. 35. 7 Compare, for example, F v N, 2022 SCC 51 at paras 99, 110, 121 (majority) and 171 (dissent), 78 RFL (8th) 253. 8 Taking judicial notice of Court records is even older than The Queen......
  • MOG v COG,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • January 19, 2023
    ...and that some evidence about that situation was revealed to Yungwirth J. [6] Can. T.S. 1983 No. 35. [7] Compare, for example, F v N, 2022 SCC 51 at paras 99, 110, 121 (majority) and 171 (dissent), 78 RFL (8th) [8] Taking judicial notice of Court records is even older than The Queen v. Jones......
  • Tsiriotakis v Rizzo,
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • April 21, 2024
    ...child: Young v. Young, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3, at pp. 99, 117; Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27, at paras. 28, 37, and 50; and F. v. N., 2022 SCC 51, at para. 100 These motions seek temporary parenting orders pending trial. This is a consent court ordered review that was required to take pla......
  • Get Started for Free
1 firm's commentaries
  • Examinations 2023 ' The Evolution Of Appellate Law In The Post-Pandemic Era
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • May 10, 2023
    ...protection of the on-board recordings. In April 2022, Bryan Smith and Lindsey Love-Forester represented the respondent in F v N, 2022 SCC 51, a case concerning international child abduction from the United Arab Emirates to Canada. This case marked the first time the SCC has addressed an abd......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT