VadeLab
StatuteDivorce Act

Section 6.2 — Divorce Act: Removal or retention of child of marriage

Text of the provision Official document

If a child of the marriage is removed from or retained in a province contrary to sections 16.9 to 16.96 or provincial law, a court in the province in which the child was habitually resident that would have had jurisdiction under sections 3 to 5 immediately before the removal or retention has jurisdiction to hear and determine an application for a parenting order, unless the court is satisfied that all persons who are entitled to object to the removal or retention have ultimately consented or acquiesced to the removal or retention; that there has been undue delay in contesting the removal or retention by those persons; or that a court in the province in which the child is present is better placed to hear and determine the application. If the court in the province in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention is satisfied that any of paragraphs (1)(a) to (c) apply, the court shall transfer the application to the court in the province in which the child is present; and the court may transfer any other application under this Act in respect of the parties to the court in the province in which the child is present. If after the child’s removal from or retention in a province, two proceedings are commenced on the same day as described in subsection 3(3), 4(3) or 5(3), this section prevails over those subsections and the Federal Court shall determine which court has jurisdiction under this section. A reference in this section to “court in the province in which the child was habitually resident” is to be read as “Federal Court”.

Official source: laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

There are no decisions in our collection citing this provision yet. As new judgments are published, they will appear here.

Search case law on this topic

See judgments from Canadian courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.

Explore case law →

Statutory text from an official public source. Informational content — does not replace advice from a qualified lawyer.