In a landmark decision delivered on June 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed a critical issue for families navigating custody and access disputes across provincial or international borders: the concept of a child’s habitual residence. The case, Dunmore v. Mehralian (2025 SCC 20), provides clarity for parents, lawyers, and courts about how jurisdiction is determined in complex family law cases.
Case Background
Michael Dunmore and Raha Mehralian were involved in a custody dispute regarding their child. The father challenged the Ontario courts’ jurisdiction over the matter, arguing that the child’s habitual residence had not been established in Ontario under the Children’s Law Reform Act.
The lower courts had found that Ontario was indeed the child’s habitual residence, but Dunmore appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking a test that relied more heavily on parental intention to establish residence rather than the child’s actual living circumstances.
Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that Ontario was the child’s habitual residence. The Court emphasized a factual approach, focusing on where the child was “at home,” rather than a formalistic reliance on parental intent. Key factors included:
- Length of time the child lived in Ontario
- Daily routines, schooling, and community ties
- Stability and permanence of the child’s living situation
The Court clarified that habitual residence is determined by the child’s reality, not merely the parents’ plans or intentions, providing important guidance for future cross-border and interprovincial custody disputes.
Why This Case Matters
This decision is important in several ways:
- Clarifying Jurisdiction
The ruling provides courts and lawyers with a clear, child-focused framework for determining jurisdiction in custody matters, reducing uncertainty for families. - Impact on Mobility
As families increasingly move between provinces or countries, knowing where a child is habitually resident is critical for deciding which court has authority over custody and access. - Practical Guidance for Clients
- Parents must understand that their child’s actual living environment, such as their school, friends, routines, can establish jurisdiction, even if the parents plan to move elsewhere.
- Documenting the child’s residence and ties is now more important than ever.
- Implications for Legal Practitioners
- Lawyers advising clients in custody disputes must focus on factual evidence about the child’s life rather than relying solely on parental intentions.
- For cross-border matters, early legal advice can help prevent jurisdictional challenges.
- Relocation agreements, parenting plans, and related legal documents should reflect this child-centered test.
Conclusion
Dunmore v. Mehralian is a reminder that family law continues to evolve to prioritize the best interests of children. By clarifying how habitual residence is determined, the Supreme Court has provided both families and legal practitioners with a practical framework for navigating complex custody disputes across provinces and borders.
The content on this post is for information purposes only and is not legal advice, which cannot be given without knowing the facts of a specific situation. You should never disregard professional legal advice or delay in seeking legal advice because of something you have read on this website. The use of the website does not establish a solicitor and client relationship.