F. v. N., 2022 SCC 51
| Jurisdiction | Federal Jurisdiction (Canada) |
| Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
| Judge | Wagner, Richard; Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Côté, Suzanne; Brown, Russell; Rowe, Malcolm; Martin, Sheilah; Kasirer, Nicholas; Jamal, Mahmud |
| Citation | 2022 SCC 51 |
| Docket Number | 39875 |
| Date | 02 December 2022 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
7 practice notes
-
M.A.B. v. M.G.C.,
...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,
...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 v. ......
-
De Leon Saldierna v. Shergill,
...must be something greater than would normally be expected from taking a child away from one parent and passing them to another: F. v. N., 2022 SCC 51 at para. 79, citing Thomson at 597. [181] The respondent bears the onus of establishing by way of evidence that is credible......
-
J.K.S. v. M.L.L.A.,
...the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that the onus is on the “abducting parent” to establish serious harm: F. v. N., 2022 SCC 51 at para. 69 [F. v. N.]. The Supreme Court characterized this as a “high threshold” with a “demanding” burden......
Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
-
M.A.B. v. M.G.C.,
...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,
...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 v. ......
-
Babi v. Chaykhouni,
...Rules. In my view, it did so. Ms. Hamade has been accepted as an expert by our courts on UAE law in other cases (see, for example, F v N, 2022 SCC 51; and Volgemut v Decristoforom, 2021 ONSC 7382). But, to the extent that Babi wanted to challenge Ms. Hamade’s opinion by, for example,......
-
J.K.S. v. M.L.L.A.,
...the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that the onus is on the “abducting parent” to establish serious harm: F. v. N., 2022 SCC 51 at para. 69 [F. v. N.]. The Supreme Court characterized this as a “high threshold” with a “demanding” burden......
Request a trial to view additional results