Vacations: Non-Hague Countries

As was the central issue in the case of Purushothaman v. Radhakrishnan, courts are often faced with a parent requesting that the court prohibit his/her (former) spouse from taking a child on vacation to a Non-Hague country.

In Mahadevan v. Shankar, Justice Pazaratz ruled that, when faced with said motion, the Court must weigh the benefits of travelling as against the plausible risks. The weighing process is based on factual evidence, and therefore depending on the facts of a case, the decisions will vary in terms of whether to allow the parent to travel to a Non-Hague country with the child.

In the case of Purushothaman v. Radhakrishnan, the father applied to have the court prohibit the mother of their child from travelling back to India with the child.

The father cited various reasons in support of the motion. He argued that the mother would abscond to India with the child and never return based on the following facts:

• The mother had all her family residing in India;
• The mother had overstayed and delayed her previous vacation to India;
• The mother is not yet a Canadian citizen; and,
• The child is too young to benefit from the trip.

The mother presented the following factual evidence in support of her case to travel with her child to India:

• She has lived in Canada for eight years;
• She has a full-time job;
• She own a condominium;
• She recently purchased a car;
• She has submitted an application for Canadian citizenship; and,
• Her child is a Canadian citizen.

The court performed the test as set out in Mahadevan v. Shankar, and found that the cultural benefits to the child significantly outweighed the risk that the mother would abscond to India.

To learn more about vacations as well as the services provided by Krol & Krol, call 905.707.3370 today.