Finally, I find there are no conflicting cases as to change in status quo. Nolan J. found it unnecessary to conduct an analysis as to status quo. The issue of custody has not yet been decided. She founded in Tessa’s best interests to prevent a trial judge from being “backed into” the custody decision based upon mobility decision. It was open to her to do so. Simply put, that is in consistent with the sequence anticipated by McLachlan J. at para. 1 of Gordon v. Goertz. There is no principle conflicting with that applied by Nolan J.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.