Dunmore v. Mehralian (2025 SCC 20): With Whom the Child Lives
- Ozan S. Guzel
- 19 hours ago
- 3 min read
The Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Dunmore v. Mehralian provides important guidance on how courts should determine a child’s “habitual residence” in parenting disputes involving competing jurisdictions. The ruling reinforces a flexible, child-focused approach and moves further away from rigid or technical interpretations that prioritize parental intention over the lived reality of the child.
Background
Dunmore v. Mehralian arose from a cross-border parenting dispute in which each parent sought to have the matter determined in a different jurisdiction. At the center of the case was a familiar but often complex question: where is the child habitually resident?
The mother and father, who had an internationally mobile relationship due to the father’s work, lived in several countries before settling temporarily in Ontario during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their child was born in Ontario in December 2020. After a brief return to Oman, the family came back to Ontario in April 2021, where the parents separated a month later. The father returned to Oman and started custody proceedings there, while the mother initiated proceedings in Ontario shortly after.
The father challenged Ontario’s jurisdiction, seeking to have the child returned to Oman. However, both the motion judge and the Court of Appeal found that Ontario had jurisdiction over parenting matters because the child was “habitually resident” in Ontario under the Children’s Law Reform Act, and his motion was dismissed.
Key Issue
The main issue before the Court was how to properly determine a child’s habitual residence when:
The parents disagree about where the child should live; and
The child has connections to more than one jurisdiction.
Specifically, the Court was asked to clarify the role of parental intention versus the child’s actual circumstances.
The Supreme Court’s Approach
The Court reaffirmed that habitual residence must be determined using a hybrid, fact-driven analysis that prioritizes the child’s perspective. While parental intention remains relevant, it is not determinative.
Instead, courts must consider the totality of the child’s circumstances, including:
The duration, regularity, and conditions of the child’s stay in a location
The child’s integration into a social and family environment
Schooling, healthcare, and community ties
The reasons for the move and the stability of the arrangement
The Court emphasized that no single factor should dominate the analysis. Importantly, it rejected any approach that would allow one parent to unilaterally establish jurisdiction based solely on their subjective intentions.
What This Means in Practice
The decision in Dunmore v. Mehralian has several practical implications for family law practitioners:
1. Evidence Matters More Than Labels
Courts will look closely at the child’s day-to-day life rather than formal agreements or stated plans. Documentary and contextual evidence—such as school enrollment, medical records, and housing arrangements—will carry significant weight.
2. Parental Intention Is Only One Piece of the Puzzle
While prior agreements or shared plans remain relevant, they cannot override the reality of where and how the child is actually living.
3. Increased Focus on Stability and Integration
The more integrated a child is in a particular community, the more likely that jurisdiction will be found to be their habitual residence.
4. Limits on Strategic Forum Shopping
The ruling makes it more difficult for a parent to manipulate jurisdiction by quickly relocating a child or relying on technical arguments detached from the child’s lived experience.
Connection to Existing Jurisprudence
This decision builds on the framework established in Balev, but further clarifies that the analysis must remain flexible and child-centered. It signals the Court’s continued commitment to harmonizing Canadian law with international principles, particularly those reflected in the Hague Convention on child abduction.
Why This Case Matters in Alberta
Although Dunmore v. Mehralian arose under Ontario legislation, the principles articulated by the Supreme Court apply nationally. Alberta courts routinely rely on Supreme Court guidance when interpreting habitual residence under the Family Law Act and related statutes.
For Alberta practitioners, this case reinforces the importance of:
Developing a strong evidentiary record
Framing arguments around the child’s lived experience
Avoiding overreliance on formal agreements or intentions
Conclusion
Dunmore v. Mehralian is a significant addition to Canadian family law jurisprudence. By reaffirming a contextual and child-focused approach to habitual residence, the Supreme Court has provided clearer guidance to courts and litigants navigating complex jurisdictional disputes.
Ultimately, the decision underscores a central principle: in parenting matters, the law must reflect the reality of the child’s life—not just the intentions of the adults involved.
If you are facing a similar situation or have family law concerns, the process can quickly become complex and time-sensitive. Obtaining legal advice early can significantly influence the outcome of your case. At Stokes Law, we can help you understand your options, prepare the necessary materials, and advocate effectively on your behalf. We would be pleased to assist you in moving your matter forward in a timely and efficient manner.
Comments