Hockey and kids

[kidsRworthit]

Hockey and kids. My 11 and 9 year old kids were registered for house league hockey in the local area where I live and they are in their 3rd year attending the same school. My ex moved to rural house with boyfriend a half hour away. She wants our 9 yr. old impressionable son to play hockey in rural community which has requires vast travel as part of house league requirement (West of Ottawa). As a single dad with two kids playing house league hockey (twice each on weekends), I planned on seeing them attend Nepean hockey leagues. This enables their father to support them and drive them to their hockey (close proximity to one another). Hockey Canada rules state that the child should play hockey in the league closest to where they attend school.

My ex doesn't like this rule, and has sold my son on the dream of playing competitive hockey in the area she just moved to in August 2012. She is asking me to sign off on transferring his registration to the rural community she just moved to. I have been very straight up in responding to her that this is not in both kids' best interests. Boy and girl should play in the same community so dad and mom may support and drive them to their respective hockey during our 50/50 shared parenting weekends.

Both hockey registrars stated their positions - Hockey Canada rule: players are to play in community where they go to school. I paid for my son's cancelled registration (ex asked for refund on her credit card) last weekend. I confirmed that my son is ready to skate for his first game this weekend with Atom Hockey Director.

I told my ex all of this and she does not want our son to play, saying he want's to play in her community. We can agree to disagree. I informed her that she shouldn't prevent our son from playing this weekend (on her parenting week) as it will only hurt him - because he love's to play hockey. I urged her to allow him to play hockey where he is registered. If she disagrees, she is entitled to lodge a challenge with the hockey office where he has been approved to play. Until a decision is rendered, let the boy play where he is registered.

Regrettably, our son is caught in the middle, and our daughter is ready to quit her first year hockey (although she enjoys it), so our son may play in this new rural community (his mom has sold him on).

Recommendation: can anyone suggest if I can pursue (expeditiously) a court order imposing that my son play hockey where he is registered, until such time that a (legally imposed) decision would state otherwise? How and where would I pursue this? Is this process initiated by my family lawyer? Any concept on timeframe?

Thanks

[Mess]

bthom, I split your post so that it could have its own thread, I think you will get more relevant responses that way.

[sixfeetunder]

Is this shared custody ? The kids are already registered to there local community correct

[Tayken]

Hockey Canada rules state that the child should play hockey in the league closest to where they attend school.

Can you provide factual evidence to support this argument on behalf of "Hockey Canada" and their "rule" that the "child should play hockey in the league closest to where they attend school"?

A web link to the Rule explicitly stating this on The Official website of Hockey Canada say?

Both hockey registrars stated their positions - Hockey Canada rule: players are to play in community where they go to school.

Again, where is this explicitly stated as a "rule" with Hockey Canada?

Found it and the OP is correct there are Rules found here:

Articles By-Laws Regulations History
http://www.hockeycanada.ca/index.php...01/la_id/1.htm

Found on Page 79. Very complex stuff that I would never have expected to be outlined in such detail. Clearly Hockey Canada has been involved in a custody and access dispute as a third party before.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[kidsRworthit]

Yes, correct Sixfeetunder: 50/50 shared custody arrangement; and both kids were registered in hockey in same community where they attend school.

Their mother asked for a credit card refund today on my son's April 3 hockey registration, which she had paid for. This past Saturday, I held his registration by paying for it with my credit card.

[kidsRworthit]

Quote the rule and show proof of school registration

Can you provide factual evidence to support this argument on behalf of "Hockey Canada" and their "rule" that the "child should play hockey in the league closest to where they attend school"?

A web link to the Rule explicitly stating this on The Official website of Hockey Canada say?



Again, where is this explicitly stated as a "rule" with Hockey Canada?

Found it and the OP is correct there are Rules found here:

Articles By-Laws Regulations History
http://www.hockeycanada.ca/index.php...01/la_id/1.htm

Found on Page 79. Very complex stuff that I would never have expected to be outlined in such detail. Clearly Hockey Canada has been involved in a custody and access dispute as a third party before.

Good Luck!
Tayken

__________________________________________________ _______

Found two rules which point to school registration as decisive factor. This is common sense as I suspected.

Thanks very much Takyen!
Appreciate your guidance and practical direction!

OTTAWA DISTRICT MINOR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION

5.0 Residence Rules
a) The Residence Rule of the ODMHA shall be interpreted in accordance with the “Residential Qualifications” prescribed in Hockey Canada Regulation F. As a supplement to section 4, b) of the above Regulation, in instances where custody is shared equally by the parents, the parents will determine where the player will play prior to registration and this will not change in subsequent years unless the status changes as per “Residential Qualifications”.
d) The documentation is spelled out in Hockey Canada Regulations, including but not restricted to:
i. Guardianship details, including Court Order(s), if applicable.

ii. Documentation showing a valid address in the new Association, e. g. a copy of the Residential bill of sale or rental agreement (with all monies blacked out), a copy of a utility bill (similarly redacted).

iii. Proof of school registration.

http://www.odmha.on.ca/system/files/RulesandRegulations2012-13.pdf
Page 8

HOCKEY CANADA BY-LAWS and REGULATIONS

4 e) Current Residential School agreements supersede this regulation.
http://www.hockeycanada.ca/index.php/ci_id/66601/la_id/1.htm
Page 80

[kidsRworthit]

Yes, shared custody, and kids are registered in school/community

Is this shared custody ? The kids are already registered to there local community correct

Yes, correct Sixfeetunder: 50/50 shared custody arrangement; and both kids were registered in hockey in same community where they attend school.

Their mother asked for a credit card refund today on my son's April 3 hockey registration, which she had paid for. This past Saturday, I held his registration by paying for it with my credit card.

[Tayken]

__________________________________________________ _______

Found two rules which point to school registration as decisive factor. This is common sense as I suspected.

Thanks very much Takyen!
Appreciate your guidance and practical direction!

OTTAWA DISTRICT MINOR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION

5.0 Residence Rules
a) The Residence Rule of the ODMHA shall be interpreted in accordance with the “Residential Qualifications” prescribed in Hockey Canada Regulation F. As a supplement to section 4, b) of the above Regulation, in instances where custody is shared equally by the parents, the parents will determine where the player will play prior to registration and this will not change in subsequent years unless the status changes as per “Residential Qualifications”.
d) The documentation is spelled out in Hockey Canada Regulations, including but not restricted to:
i. Guardianship details, including Court Order(s), if applicable.

ii. Documentation showing a valid address in the new Association, e. g. a copy of the Residential bill of sale or rental agreement (with all monies blacked out), a copy of a utility bill (similarly redacted).

iii. Proof of school registration.

http://www.odmha.on.ca/system/files/RulesandRegulations2012-13.pdf
Page 8

HOCKEY CANADA BY-LAWS and REGULATIONS

4 e) Current Residential School agreements supersede this regulation.
http://www.hockeycanada.ca/index.php/ci_id/66601/la_id/1.htm
Page 80

This is what happens when a highly conflicted person attempts to "forum shop" before the courts as well. Often, people put there personal best interests before the children in contravention of what the court actually uses as a determining factor in accordance with the Children's Law Reform Act as defined in section 24.(1).

These possibly highly conflicted people attempt to use courts, school, and activities such as hockey to often "live out their dreams" without any consideration to the impact of the children involved. This is why the CLRA also states clearly the determining factor on determining "habitual residence".

In your matter the other parent is unable to either accept or understand the reasons for which an organization such as Hockey Canada explicitly states:

4 e) Current Residential School agreements supersede this regulation.

Logically evaluating the situation described one would have to consider in accordance with the "best interests" (24.(1) of the CLRA).

1. Why the other parent does not reside in close proximity to the school in question?

2. With regards to 50-50 full joint custody and equal access what benefit does the other parent have in not residing close to the habitual school for which the children in question attend? Can they bring forward cogent and relevant evidence that it is truly (in accordance with 24.(1) of the CLRA) that they not abide by the Hockey Canada by-law.

3. If brought before the court, can the Superior Court order a third party, such as Hockey Canada to violate their own governing Rules and by-laws without having them as a third party to the action. By doing so a judge is setting a president, removing the validity of the Rules and by-laws set by this third party and will encourage "forum shopping" for activities such as hockey.

4. The "status quo" established in the children's attendance at school in regard to this by-law. It is in the children's "best interests" to play in a league close to their habitual school so they can play with other children from that neighborhood (their friends) and be close to the community for which they habitually go to school in. To disrupt this "status quo" it would require extraordinary circumstances for which Hockey Canada does have accommodations for. (For example: A child who is a gifted hockey player who should be in AA or AAA hockey and the local league does not have a AA or AAA team and therefor needs to play elsewhere as their talent in hockey is negatively impacting the other children participation's enjoyment of the sport. i.e. The child who goes out and scores 14 goals in one game with ease at a house league level.) These accommodations are not for parents who want to live on a farm and not close to the children's habitual school.

The other parent should have carefully considered their residential relocation and consulted with professionals prior to acting so they could have gotten a better perspective before acting on possibly their dreams and wishes. The court will not in my opinion consider statements of "belief" in a matter like this or the other parent's personal "best interests" over the children's "best interests". The determining factor is the children in question's "best interests" not the other parent's beliefs, feelings, desires and/or wishes.

In consideration of the third party (Hockey Canada) they have to have such governance in place demonstrates that Hockey Canada has considered the best interests of children. I have no doubt that if made a party to any litigation on determining the residential location for registration Hockey Canada's position would be that the Rule in the by-law is defined with regards to comments made in points 1-4 and in consideration of the child's "best interest" and not for the "convenience" of parents who want to "forum shop", live out their personal dreams, etc...

OP, if you do bring this to court, align the reasons for registration to the "best interests". Be very cautious of how you bring forward your evidence and avoid conflict and focus on the "best interests" of the children.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[kidsRworthit]

This is what happens when a highly conflicted person attempts to "forum shop" before the courts as well. Often, people put there personal best interests before the children in contravention of what the court actually uses as a determining factor in accordance with the Children's Law Reform Act as defined in section 24.(1).

These possibly highly conflicted people attempt to use courts, school, and activities such as hockey to often "live out their dreams" without any consideration to the impact of the children involved. This is why the CLRA also states clearly the determining factor on determining "habitual residence".

In your matter the other parent is unable to either accept or understand the reasons for which an organization such as Hockey Canada explicitly states:



Logically evaluating the situation described one would have to consider in accordance with the "best interests" (24.(1) of the CLRA).

1. Why the other parent does not reside in close proximity to the school in question?

2. With regards to 50-50 full joint custody and equal access what benefit does the other parent have in not residing close to the habitual school for which the children in question attend? Can they bring forward cogent and relevant evidence that it is truly (in accordance with 24.(1) of the CLRA) that they not abide by the Hockey Canada by-law.

3. If brought before the court, can the Superior Court order a third party, such as Hockey Canada to violate their own governing Rules and by-laws without having them as a third party to the action. By doing so a judge is setting a president, removing the validity of the Rules and by-laws set by this third party and will encourage "forum shopping" for activities such as hockey.

4. The "status quo" established in the children's attendance at school in regard to this by-law. It is in the children's "best interests" to play in a league close to their habitual school so they can play with other children from that neighborhood (their friends) and be close to the community for which they habitually go to school in. To disrupt this "status quo" it would require extraordinary circumstances for which Hockey Canada does have accommodations for. (For example: A child who is a gifted hockey player who should be in AA or AAA hockey and the local league does not have a AA or AAA team and therefor needs to play elsewhere as their talent in hockey is negatively impacting the other children participation's enjoyment of the sport. i.e. The child who goes out and scores 14 goals in one game with ease at a house league level.) These accommodations are not for parents who want to live on a farm and not close to the children's habitual school.

The other parent should have carefully considered their residential relocation and consulted with professionals prior to acting so they could have gotten a better perspective before acting on possibly their dreams and wishes. The court will not in my opinion consider statements of "belief" in a matter like this or the other parent's personal "best interests" over the children's "best interests". The determining factor is the children in question's "best interests" not the other parent's beliefs, feelings, desires and/or wishes.

In consideration of the third party (Hockey Canada) they have to have such governance in place demonstrates that Hockey Canada has considered the best interests of children. I have no doubt that if made a party to any litigation on determining the residential location for registration Hockey Canada's position would be that the Rule in the by-law is defined with regards to comments made in points 1-4 and in consideration of the child's "best interest" and not for the "convenience" of parents who want to "forum shop", live out their personal dreams, etc...

OP, if you do bring this to court, align the reasons for registration to the "best interests". Be very cautious of how you bring forward your evidence and avoid conflict and focus on the "best interests" of the children.

Good Luck!
Tayken

if you do bring this to court, align the reasons for registration to the "best interests". Be very cautious of how you bring forward your evidence and avoid conflict and focus on the "best interests" of the children.

Good Luck!
Tayken[/QUOTE]

__________________________________________________ _

Is 9 yr. old son's desire: in his best interest, or simply a wish?

My ex refuses to acknowledge Hockey Canada's rule of school registration as decisive factor for hockey registration. She also is not respecting the local community hockey registrar's (rule based) decision not to transfer our son's registration to her community.

Regrettably, the mother has pulled the children into the middle of this issue and involved them to the point, my daughter wants to quit her first year hockey (which she admitted she enjoys) in order to prevent mommy and daddy from arguing and so her brother can switch communities and play hockey there. In an age appropriate way, I have explained to both our kids the rule of school area which Hockey Canada has determined which community boys and girls are to play hockey in. This was done to address situations like ours where the kids live at both parents' homes.

My son has played at least four times in the new community rink - first in a competitive tryout. He didn't make the cut, was let go last, but told by the coach he could be called up on occasion if he played hockey in the new community house league. So, our 9 yr. old son is naturally interested in this.

My ex has reinforced the new community hockey over the two previous years (tremendous hockey experience) our son enjoyed, by 1. encouraging developing both our kids' hockey skills through interaction with her new boyfriend - who played minor hockey, 2. selling the local community hockey to our son at every turn, 3. preventing my son from attending practices/sort-outs in his existing community (encumbant) 4. attempting to transfer his registration to the new community (declined by existing community hockey registrar), 5. asking existing hockey registrar for refund of his registration (I paid with my credit card and effectively (replaced her payment - and I told her so).

I allowed our son to practice twice on my parenting week in this new community, and my ex signed our son out of school early (alleged appointment) again on my parenting week. She has not reciprocated once in allowing our son to skate in his local community/school registered area, although I've asked her.

Yesterday, I asked my ex to let our son play and she refused stating he did not want to play for Nepean, rather the new community.
I asked my ex to allow our son to play his first game for where he is registered and the community where he attends school, and if she disagrees, she may lodge a challenge. In the meantime, our son gets to play hockey, and this is in his best interest.

She has not responded, and based on her self-serving position and tactics, I doubt she will change unless a legally imposed decision is enforced.
She has not respected Hockey Canada's school registration criteria, the local community hockey registrar's ruling, and has attempted to transfer our son's registration (declined by registrar). This week, she cancelled her April hockey registration payment for our son, however, last Saturday I paid for his hockey registration to guarantee his spot (and informed her of this fact).

I am uncertain about how to attain a court order stating my son should play hockey in his existing registered area = school registered area. Is this through a family law lawyer, or could it be by an application at the FLIC, or could it be expedited by a mediator or arbitrator. BTW: no Sep. Agreement signed off although we attended several sessions, had our lawyers fine tune wording, then a FINAL, FINAL SA was produced. My ex refused to sign, stating I interpreted the wording differently than her.

Frustrated, and need to pursue expeditious and ideally cost effective solution to existing hockey dilemma.

Appreciate any wisdom you'd care to share.

[Tayken]

Is 9 yr. old son's desire: in his best interest, or simply a wish?

To answer this one uniquely to the other questions:

NO

Reason being as follows:

The "best interests" test as defined in the CLRA is (my emphasis added in the highlight):

Best interests of child

(2) The court shall consider all the child’s needs and circumstances, including,

(a) the love, affection and emotional ties between the child and,

(i) each person entitled to or claiming custody of or access to the child,
(ii) other members of the child’s family who reside with the child, and
(iii) persons involved in the child’s care and upbringing;

(b) the child’s views and preferences, if they can reasonably be ascertained;
(c) the length of time the child has lived in a stable home environment;
(d) the ability and willingness of each person applying for custody of the child to provide the child with guidance and education, the necessaries of life and any special needs of the child;
(e) the plan proposed by each person applying for custody of or access to the child for the child’s care and upbringing;
(f) the permanence and stability of the family unit with which it is proposed that the child will live;
(g) the ability of each person applying for custody of or access to the child to act as a parent; and
(h) the relationship by blood or through an adoption order between the child and each person who is a party to the application. 2006, c. 1, s. 3 (1); 2009, c. 11, s. 10.

A child of age 9 is not at an age of psychological development in which their " views and preferences, if they can reasonably be ascertained". The age at which the court will generally consider this is at age 12 and generally requires the involvement of a custody and access investigator to insure their preference can be "reasonably be ascertained".

Reasons being:

1. Parental influence could be the reason for the child's preference.

2. Only a non-involved third party who is clinically trained could assist the court in determining if the child's wishes are "reasonable".

To reasonably ascertain a child of 9's preference without a qualified clinician doing so would be abusive to the child, exposing them to emotional harm and placing them in an situation for which they are not psychologically capable to determine on their own.

If the other parent in your matter is trying to tell you what the child is expressing remind them of the wise words of the Honourable Mr. Justice Quinn in Gerenia v. Harb (which you can find recanted in NUMEROUS publicly posted decisions):

Undoubtedly, there are many tasks that a child, when asked may find unpleasant to perform. But ask we must and perform they must. A child who refused to go on an access visit should be treated by the custodial parent the same as a child who refused to go to school or otherwise misbehaves. The job of a parent is to parent.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[kidsRworthit]

Intervention required pronto: to block mom from pickin son up at school on dad's week

To answer this one uniquely to the other questions:

NO

Reason being as follows:

The "best interests" test as defined in the CLRA is (my emphasis added in the highlight):



A child of age 9 is not at an age of psychological development in which their " views and preferences, if they can reasonably be ascertained". The age at which the court will generally consider this is at age 12 and generally requires the involvement of a custody and access investigator to insure their preference can be "reasonably be ascertained".

Reasons being:

1. Parental influence could be the reason for the child's preference.

2. Only a non-involved third party who is clinically trained could assist the court in determining if the child's wishes are "reasonable".

To reasonably ascertain a child of 9's preference without a qualified clinician doing so would be abusive to the child, exposing them to emotional harm and placing them in an situation for which they are not psychologically capable to determine on their own.

If the other parent in your matter is trying to tell you what the child is expressing remind them of the wise words of the Honourable Mr. Justice Quinn in Gerenia v. Harb (which you can find recanted in NUMEROUS publicly posted decisions):



Good Luck!
Tayken

__________________________________________________ _

Legal intervention required to prevent my kids' mother from forcing her will on my parenting week with me two kids. Suggestions/perspective encouraged and appreciated.

In a truly unfortunate, disappointing and tremendously damaging move, my ex has "persuaded" my son to call me and state he wants his mom to pick him up after school on Monday (voice mail). She has intentionally drawn our children into an adult battle and based on the legal precedents and common sense Tayken and Mom2Three have pointed out (thank you), she is aware she has extremely thin legal grounds on which to base her argument to transfer my son's hockey registration to the community in which she freshly moved to.

I just received a text stating that my ex would be picking my son up after school tomorrow (Monday) on my parenting week (nothing mentioned about my daughter) as this is my son's request. I have a truly fabulous relationship with my 9 yr. old son, and my ex has sadly been poisoning the impressionable youngster against her father by stating all things positive about her local community hockey and she has effectively sold him a bill of goods. At 9, as Tayken has aptly stated, a child is not psychologically developed to determine their views and preferences.

My ex agreed in principle to child counselling for our kids as they are the true victims of the separation. She has not agreed to a mandatory appointment (to initiate the process/mutual consent from both parents required) on a Tuesday afternoon apointment at noon or one over the next few weeks.
My ex claims that contrary to my family noticing our son is showing physical symptoms of the hockey disagreement, she notices none. I stated a third party, neutral child counsellor is trained in this area and qualified to make an assessment, and we cannot do this appropriately. She agreed in principle, but will not commit to appointment dates/times I provided. Doing so, would admit our son is caught in our argument, is impacted, and could "lessen" the impact of her utilising him as a spokesperson to champion her claim that our son does not want to play hockey in his habitual school area. She read all of the legally based and logical decisions, however she feels that she can will her 9 yr. old son against the rules (yes, pathetic...)

So, I have been labelled a bully numerous times for quoting the local hockey Registrar's response of school area = hockey area, and that we do not have a choice. Our daughter has started her first year playing Nepean ice hockey, which fits nicely with the geography of my son's Nepean ice hockey. Any parents relate to two kids in hockey on the weekend? Geography is key to an effective and realistic fun time for the kids. Boy and girl play in same area they go to school: as per league rules. Why am I a bully and the bad guy when I am following the rules, and setting an example for my kids to follow?

My ex is taking matters into her own hands and is "taking" my son on my week by stating she will pick him up after school as "he" has requested this.

Please help me in sharing your thoughts!

How can I expediously get a court order/injunction preventing my ex from picking up my son on my week? She maintains...his will is he wants her...

Background: We went through mediation, lawyers (2 passes) and she refused to sign the FINAL, FINAL separation agreement.
So, when the SA is in her favour, she claims this is what we agreed to.
When the SA is not to her liking, she claims she didn't sign it.
She conveniently plays both sides of the fence.

Good Dad - beaten down...

[Mess]

http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...27/#post109576
I answered in your other thread. Do not let her do this.

[sassie77]

Wow was this from me??? We had the exact same issue with my Stepson. For the past 4 years SS was playing hockey in Stoney Creek and lives in Caledonia, very early on the Mother stated that she wanted nothing to do with hockey and we could pay all associated costs and fees, tournaments etc. We did this each year while his Dad coached his hockey team and played with his stepbrother, against his wishes my SS had a melt down and even threatened to kill himself. OMHA released him as he attended school in Caledonia. We are in Court and my hisband lawyer brought this up. The judge said while he attends school in Caledonia there is nothing he could do, also on my husbands weekends he did not have to bring him on his access time. (this only hurts the child). However she expects us to aldo be responsible for pick up drop off and going back up to hockey in a 48 hour period 40 minutes 1 way. Good luck my husband cried like a baby as she was only doing this to interfer with his relationship and hurt him. Disgusting sick behaviour.

However with that said if you share custody and the child has been playing in the same area since day 1 you may have a case. Due to your custody situation.

Hockey and kids. My 11 and 9 year old kids were registered for house league hockey in the local area where I live and they are in their 3rd year attending the same school. My ex moved to rural house with boyfriend a half hour away. She wants our 9 yr. old impressionable son to play hockey in rural community which has requires vast travel as part of house league requirement (West of Ottawa). As a single dad with two kids playing house league hockey (twice each on weekends), I planned on seeing them attend Nepean hockey leagues. This enables their father to support them and drive them to their hockey (close proximity to one another). Hockey Canada rules state that the child should play hockey in the league closest to where they attend school.

My ex doesn't like this rule, and has sold my son on the dream of playing competitive hockey in the area she just moved to in August 2012. She is asking me to sign off on transferring his registration to the rural community she just moved to. I have been very straight up in responding to her that this is not in both kids' best interests. Boy and girl should play in the same community so dad and mom may support and drive them to their respective hockey during our 50/50 shared parenting weekends.

Both hockey registrars stated their positions - Hockey Canada rule: players are to play in community where they go to school. I paid for my son's cancelled registration (ex asked for refund on her credit card) last weekend. I confirmed that my son is ready to skate for his first game this weekend with Atom Hockey Director.

I told my ex all of this and she does not want our son to play, saying he want's to play in her community. We can agree to disagree. I informed her that she shouldn't prevent our son from playing this weekend (on her parenting week) as it will only hurt him - because he love's to play hockey. I urged her to allow him to play hockey where he is registered. If she disagrees, she is entitled to lodge a challenge with the hockey office where he has been approved to play. Until a decision is rendered, let the boy play where he is registered.

Regrettably, our son is caught in the middle, and our daughter is ready to quit her first year hockey (although she enjoys it), so our son may play in this new rural community (his mom has sold him on).

Recommendation: can anyone suggest if I can pursue (expeditiously) a court order imposing that my son play hockey where he is registered, until such time that a (legally imposed) decision would state otherwise? How and where would I pursue this? Is this process initiated by my family lawyer? Any concept on timeframe?

Thanks

[Tayken]

If anyone reading this thread ever wonders why Hockey Canada, Ontario Soccor Association, et all... have 187+ governance documentations (Rules) this is why... Because parents cannot put their children's best interests first and continually put their own best interests first. The Rules regarding school districts are there to stop parents from forum shopping in the leagues.

School boards do it for the same reason.

It is incredible how many parents forum shop by seeking sole custody.

[sassie77]

I believe that if a child has been playing in 1 jurisdiction for x number of years that one of the parents should not be able to relocate the child, they have established roots, teammates and status quo. Relocating the child is not in their best interest especially in the middle of a season.

This is what happens when a highly conflicted person attempts to "forum shop" before the courts as well. Often, people put there personal best interests before the children in contravention of what the court actually uses as a determining factor in accordance with the Children's Law Reform Act as defined in section 24.(1).

These possibly highly conflicted people attempt to use courts, school, and activities such as hockey to often "live out their dreams" without any consideration to the impact of the children involved. This is why the CLRA also states clearly the determining factor on determining "habitual residence".

In your matter the other parent is unable to either accept or understand the reasons for which an organization such as Hockey Canada explicitly states:



Logically evaluating the situation described one would have to consider in accordance with the "best interests" (24.(1) of the CLRA).

1. Why the other parent does not reside in close proximity to the school in question?

2. With regards to 50-50 full joint custody and equal access what benefit does the other parent have in not residing close to the habitual school for which the children in question attend? Can they bring forward cogent and relevant evidence that it is truly (in accordance with 24.(1) of the CLRA) that they not abide by the Hockey Canada by-law.

3. If brought before the court, can the Superior Court order a third party, such as Hockey Canada to violate their own governing Rules and by-laws without having them as a third party to the action. By doing so a judge is setting a president, removing the validity of the Rules and by-laws set by this third party and will encourage "forum shopping" for activities such as hockey.

4. The "status quo" established in the children's attendance at school in regard to this by-law. It is in the children's "best interests" to play in a league close to their habitual school so they can play with other children from that neighborhood (their friends) and be close to the community for which they habitually go to school in. To disrupt this "status quo" it would require extraordinary circumstances for which Hockey Canada does have accommodations for. (For example: A child who is a gifted hockey player who should be in AA or AAA hockey and the local league does not have a AA or AAA team and therefor needs to play elsewhere as their talent in hockey is negatively impacting the other children participation's enjoyment of the sport. i.e. The child who goes out and scores 14 goals in one game with ease at a house league level.) These accommodations are not for parents who want to live on a farm and not close to the children's habitual school.

The other parent should have carefully considered their residential relocation and consulted with professionals prior to acting so they could have gotten a better perspective before acting on possibly their dreams and wishes. The court will not in my opinion consider statements of "belief" in a matter like this or the other parent's personal "best interests" over the children's "best interests". The determining factor is the children in question's "best interests" not the other parent's beliefs, feelings, desires and/or wishes.

In consideration of the third party (Hockey Canada) they have to have such governance in place demonstrates that Hockey Canada has considered the best interests of children. I have no doubt that if made a party to any litigation on determining the residential location for registration Hockey Canada's position would be that the Rule in the by-law is defined with regards to comments made in points 1-4 and in consideration of the child's "best interest" and not for the "convenience" of parents who want to "forum shop", live out their personal dreams, etc...

OP, if you do bring this to court, align the reasons for registration to the "best interests". Be very cautious of how you bring forward your evidence and avoid conflict and focus on the "best interests" of the children.

Good Luck!
Tayken