N.M.R. v. Z.W.F.

N.M.R. v. Z.W.F.

The August 2022 Florida order, which solely directed the child's return to Florida, is not an "extraprovincial order" within the meaning of s.72(1) FLA and therefore cannot be recognized under s.75; alternatively, even if it were, the Court would nonetheless decline recognition because British Columbia is the more appropriate forum given the child's habitual residence in BC, the respondent's prior consent/acquiescence to relocation, the child's settled stability in Victoria, the respondent's noncompliance with child support, and the fact that recognition/enforcement would be contrary to the child's best interests and BC public policy; accordingly the respondent's application is dismissed.

Citation
2024 BCSC 452
Parties
Claimant (mother): N.M.R.; Respondent (father): Z.W.F.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Family Law (parenting/relocation/extraprovincial Recognition) / Application Hearing to Recognize Florida Order and Determine Appropriate Forum; Judgment Issued
Outcome
Respondent's application dismissed
Legal Topics
Child Relocation, Habitual Residence, Extraprovincial Order Recognition (fla Ss.72 75), Forum Non Conveniens, Best Interests of the Child, Child Support Enforcement
Source Language
English
Family Law Conflict of Laws Child Custody Enforcement of Foreign Orders Child Relocation Habitual Residence Extraprovincial Order Recognition (fla Ss.72 75) Forum Non Conveniens +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N.M.R.

Claimant (mother)

Z.W.F.

Respondent (father)

Procedural Posture

Family Law (parenting/relocation/extraprovincial Recognition) / Application Hearing to Recognize Florida Order and Determine Appropriate Forum; Judgment Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the August 2022 Florida order is an "extraprovincial order" within s.72(1) of the Family Law Act (FLA)
  2. 2 Whether the August 2022 Order should be recognized and enforced in British Columbia under s.75 FLA
  3. 3 Whether British Columbia is the appropriate forum to determine issues relating to the Child (forum conveniens / s.74 FLA and CJPTA)

Ratio Decidendi

The August 2022 Florida order, which solely directed the child's return to Florida, is not an "extraprovincial order" within the meaning of s.72(1) FLA and therefore cannot be recognized under s.75; alternatively, even if it were, the Court would nonetheless decline recognition because British Columbia is the more appropriate forum given the child's habitual residence in BC, the respondent's prior consent/acquiescence to relocation, the child's settled stability in Victoria, the respondent's noncompliance with child support, and the fact that recognition/enforcement would be contrary to the child's best interests and BC public policy; accordingly the respondent's application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Respondent's application dismissed

Orders

  • Respondent's application to recognize and enforce the August 2022 Florida order is dismissed
  • The August 2022 Order is not recognized as an extraprovincial order under s.72(1) Family Law Act