Habitual residence

Last updated

In conflict of laws, habitual residence is the standard used to determine the law which should be applied to determine a given legal dispute or entitlement. It can be contrasted with the law on domicile, traditionally used in common law jurisdictions to do the same thing.

Contents

Habitual residence is less demanding than domicile and the focus is more on past experience rather than future intention. There is normally only one habitual residence where the individual usually resides and routinely returns to after visiting other places. It is the geographical place considered "home" for a reasonably significant period of time.

Description

In conflict of laws there are three personal connecting factors that help courts determine which law should apply to a particular dispute or issue. [1] These are nationality, domicile, and habitual residence. Habitual residence is the newest concept of the three and is becoming a more commonly used factor than domicile in many common law jurisdictions and within statutes and international conventions. [2]

General principles

There is no internationally agreed upon definition of habitual residence. [3] Even within specific jurisdictions, many courts have yet to fully define the term. Numerous domestic statutes and conventions that use habitual residence, such as the Hague Conference on Private International Law, also do not define the term. [4] This may be to avoid “the rigidity associated with the alternative concepts of domicile and nationality”. [5] The lack of definition means that habitual residence is generally left to judicial interpretation by the courts in whichever jurisdiction uses it as a connecting factor. [5]

Although there is no definition, habitual residence can generally be considered something less than domicile but something more than simple residence: a midpoint between the two. [6] Previous definitions suggested that habitual residence required someone to be physically present in a place for a certain period of time to be considered habitual resident in that place. [7] However, many scholars and courts have disagreed with this and believe that there are a number of factors that are to be considered in determining someone's habitual residence; while the amount of time spent in a given place is one of those factors, it is not determinative. [7] Other factors that may be relevant depend on the jurisdiction; for example in the European Union, continuity and durability of the residence are considered in addition to the duration. [3]

Application

Domestically, the use and application of habitual residence depends on which states are involved in the dispute. Each jurisdiction may use habitual residence in different instances. Therefore, habitual residence can have a significant impact on a person when it is the sole factor, or a factor, used to determine which law applies to a particular dispute or issue. A person's habitual residence could affect marital disputes, land-related disputes, succession, and other types of disputes or matters, depending on the rules of the states involved. [3]

International Conventions

The concept of habitual residence is used in a number of international conventions, beginning with the Hague Convention on Civil Procedure of 14 November 1896. Since then it has become the basis of a number of other conventions either to complement or supplant the traditional connecting factor of domicile. One example of this is in the Convention on International Child Abduction, which uses habitual residence throughout to determine the applicable law in an actual or potential child abduction case. [8]

Comparison with nationality

Habitual residence may also be more discriminating that the test of nationality or lex patriae in that the connection is to a specific location within a state rather than to the country of nationality which may contain several subnational jurisdictions (such as states or provinces). Hence, where a country contains more than one legal system, the residence must determine which of the several possible laws might apply (e.g. in the United States which of the laws of the U.S. states is to be applied). A supranational example of this selection process is contained in Article 19 of the Rome Convention:

States with more than one legal system
  1. Where a State comprises several territorial units each of which has its own rules of law in respect of contractual obligations, each territorial unit shall be considered as a country for the purposes of identifying the law applicable under this Convention.
  2. A State within which different territorial units have their own rules of law in respect of contractual obligations shall not be bound to apply this Convention to conflicts solely between the laws of such units.

Comparison with domicile

Habitual residence is fact-dependent; it cannot be a purely legal concept and there are different views about the factual situations that it is supposed to denote. Much of the case law on habitual residence suggests it is purely objective, seeking evidence of physical presence over a considerable period of time. [7] However, there is an argument to be made that habitual residence does have a subjective element like domicile since intention may, at times, be a factor in considering an individual's habitual residence. [9] This is particularly true if habitual residence it is considered synonymous with ordinary residence which requires an analysis of a person's "ordinary mode of living". [10] However, it is not universally accepted that habitual residence and ordinary residence are the same, making it debatable if habitual residence has subjective elements like ordinary residence. [11]

In comparison, to establish a domicile of choice, it is necessary to have a clear factual base in one state and that must be accompanied by an animus semper manendi (Latin : intention to reside indefinitely). [12] Although it is not so difficult to produce evidence that an individual has established a home in a state, it is very difficult to prove that someone has no intention of ever establishing a home in another state. Therefore, the test for habitual residence is less demanding without this subjective element of intention. The court focuses on the past experience of the individual and not so much on future intention. [12]

However, it may be more difficult to determine where a person has a habitual residence if they are constantly on the move with no real or continuing connection with any of the countries through which they have passed. This could be resolved by reference to the individual's intention, which is well-defined in the case law for the purposes of domicile, but not for the purposes habitual residence.

The subjective element required for domicile is the biggest difference when comparing the factor with habitual residence. This could be either positive or negative depending on the situation.

The law in specific jurisdictions

Canada

The use of the term "habitual residence" in Canadian law stems from the Hague Convention on Private International Law. At common law, a person's habitual residence is a question of fact determined on a case by case basis. Canadian courts have not provided a clear definition on the term; however, the word “habitual” qualifying the term “residence” suggests that more than just physical presence is required to find someone to be a habitual residence of a place. [3] Also required is “a minimum connection with some form of dwelling” and “a stay of some duration”. [3] Duration of time, while important as a factor to consider, is not determinative. [13] Evidence of present intention to reside is also a factor to be considered. [14]

In Canadian legislation, residence is becoming more common as the primary personal connecting factor instead of domicile, following the lead of international conventions like the Hague Convention. [15] Habitual residence specifically is also becoming more common in legislation as drafters use the term as the primary connecting factor. One example is in the Federal Divorce Act which uses a one year period of habitual residence as the basis for which a court in a province has a jurisdiction to hear and determine a divorce proceeding. [16]

Interpretation of habitual residence in the Hague Convention

When determining habitual residence pursuant to Article 3 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, courts are to apply the hybrid approach outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada in Office of the Children's Lawyer v Balev, 2018 SCC 16 which places emphasis on the best interests of the child. [17] There is no specific test for defining habitual residence under the Convention, rather, a non-exhaustive list of potentially relevant factors. The importance of the factors may vary depending on the child's age. The Court is not to focus solely on parental intention or the child's acclimatization, but to all relevant considerations. [17] [18] Factors to be considered include the child's links to and circumstances in Country A, the circumstances of the move between countries, and the child's links to and circumstances in country B. [17] Other factors suggested by the majority include the nationality of the child, as well as the duration, regularity, conditions and reasons for the child's stay in a jurisdiction. [17]

Ontario

In Ontario the legislature has started to use and define habitual residence in certain statutes. For example, habitual residence is defined in the Children's Law Reform Act . [19] Under the act, a child will be considered habitually resident in the last place where the child resided with both parents; or if the parents are living separate and apart, with one parent under a separation agreement, consent, or acquiescence of the other, or under a court order; or with a person other than a parent on a permanent basis or for a significant period of time. [20]

British Columbia

In British Columbia, habitual residence is now used in a number of statutes, specifically in provincial family law statutes. [21] For example, British Columbia's Family Law Act uses habitual residence throughout the act as the only connecting factor and has similar wording to Ontarios Children's law Reform Act in determining where a child is habitually resident. [21]

Quebec

The Quebec Superior Court has defined habitually as meaning "almost constantly, generally". [22] Habitual residence is the place one regularly, normally or customarily lives. Habitual residence requires more durable ties than mere residence; merely passing through a place is not sufficient to establish habitual residence. [23]

In the context of International Child Abductions, the Quebec Court of Appeal outlined that determining habitual residence requires focussing on the reality of the child not the parents; considering the duration of time necessary for the child to develop ties and be integrated into the new environment; the child's real and active connection with their place of residence. To be habitual, the residence must have a certain degree of continuity, but, there is no minimum period necessary to establish the acquisition of the new habitual residence. [24]

Manitoba

Manitoba has abolished any common law use of domicile and habitual residence by codifying it through The Domicile and Habitual Residence Act. [25] Under the act habitual residence is to be determined under the act and not by the common law. Under the act the basis for determining the habitual residence of each person is set out in section 8(1) of the act which states the following:

8(1) The domicile and habitual residence of each person is in the state and a subdivision thereof in which that person's principal home is situated and in which that person intends to reside.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), unless a contrary intention is shown, a person is presumed to intend to reside indefinitely in the state and subdivision thereof in which that person's principal home is situated.

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Pitel, Stephen; Blom, Joost; Edinger, Elizabeth (2016). Private International Law in Common Law Canada. Canada: Emond. p. 139. ISBN   978-1-55239-654-4.
  2. ↑ Rogerson, Pippa (2000). "Habitual Residence: The New Domicile?". The International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 49 (1): 96. doi:10.1017/S0020589300063971. ISSN   0020-5893. JSTOR   761579.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 Walker, Janet (2005). Canadian Conflict of Laws (6th ed.). Markham, Ontario: LexisNexis. pp. Ch. 4. ISBN   9780433449850.
  4. ↑ "HCCH | Home". www.hcch.net. Retrieved 2021-03-26.
  5. 1 2 Rogerson, Pippa (2000). "Habitual Residence: The New Domicile?". The International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 49 (1): 87. doi:10.1017/S0020589300063971. ISSN   0020-5893. JSTOR   761579 – via JSTOR.
  6. ↑ Graveson, Ronald (1974). Conflicts of laws: private international law (7th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell. p. 194. ISBN   0421192704.
  7. 1 2 3 Dicey; Morris; Collins (1980). The Conflict of Laws (10th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell. pp. 144–145.
  8. ↑ "HCCH | #28 - Full text". www.hcch.net. Retrieved 2021-03-26.
  9. ↑ P.A. v. K.A., 1987 ABCA 52, at para 10 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/2dkz1>, retrieved on 2021-04-15
  10. ↑ Nafie v Badawy, 2015 ABCA 36, at para 68 (CanLII) <https://canlii.ca/t/gg2pq>, retrieved on 2021-04-17
  11. ↑ Patel, Stephen; Rafferty, Nicholas (2016). conflict of Laws. Toronto, ON: Irwin law. p. 49. ISBN   978-1-55221-436-7.
  12. 1 2 P.A. v. K.A., 1987 ABCA 52, at para 8 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/2dkz1>, retrieved on 2021-03-26
  13. ↑ P.A. v. K.A., 1987 ABCA 52, at para 14 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/2dkz1>, retrieved on 2021-03-26
  14. ↑ P.A. v. K.A., 1987 ABCA 52 at para 11 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/2dkz1>, retrieved on 2021-03-26
  15. ↑ Patel, Stephen; Rafferty, Nicholas (2015). Conflict of Laws (2nd ed.). Canada: Irwin Law. p. 20. ISBN   978-1-55221-436-7.
  16. ↑ Divorce Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.)) at 3(1).
  17. 1 2 3 4 Canada, Supreme Court of (2001-01-01). "Supreme Court of Canada - SCC Case Information - Search". scc-csc.lexum.com. Retrieved 2021-03-26.
  18. ↑ Garbolino, James (2019). "Case Commentary: Office of the Children's Lawyer v. Balev, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 398 (Can.)".
  19. ↑ "Childrens Law Reform Act". Ontario.ca. 2014-07-24. Retrieved 2021-03-05.
  20. ↑ Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 at 22(2).
  21. 1 2 "Child, Family and Community Service Act". www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca. Retrieved 2021-03-05.
  22. ↑ S.F. v. C.L., [2003] J.Q. n. 10672
  23. ↑ "The Concepts of Habitual Residence and Ordinary Residence in Light of Quebec Civil Law, the 1985 Divorce Act and the Hague Conventions of 1980 and 1996" (PDF). Justice Canada.
  24. ↑ Government of Canada, Department of Justice (2002-03-29). "The Meaning of "ordinary Residence" and "habitual Residence" in the Common Law Provinces in a Family Law Context". www.justice.gc.ca. Retrieved 2021-03-05.
  25. ↑ The Domicile and Habitual Residence Act, CCSM c D96, <https://canlii.ca/t/kb3x> retrieved on 2021-03-26

Related Research Articles

Conflict of laws is the set of rules or laws a jurisdiction applies to a case, transaction, or other occurrence that has connections to more than one jurisdiction. This body of law deals with three broad topics: jurisdiction, rules regarding when it is appropriate for a court to hear such a case; foreign judgments, dealing with the rules by which a court in one jurisdiction mandates compliance with a ruling of a court in another jurisdiction; and choice of law, which addresses the question of which substantive laws will be applied in such a case. These issues can arise in any private-law context, but they are especially prevalent in contract law and tort law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hague Conference on Private International Law</span> International organization

The Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) is an intergovernmental organisation in the area of private international law, that administers several international conventions, protocols and soft law instruments.

In law and conflict of laws, domicile is relevant to an individual's "personal law", which includes the law that governs a person's status and their property. It is independent of a person's nationality. Although a domicile may change from time to time, a person has only one domicile, or residence, at any point in their life, no matter what their circumstances. Domicile is distinct from habitual residence, where there is less focus on future intent.

Choice of law is a procedural stage in the litigation of a case involving the conflict of laws when it is necessary to reconcile the differences between the laws of different legal jurisdictions, such as sovereign states, federated states, or provinces. The outcome of this process is potentially to require the courts of one jurisdiction to apply the law of a different jurisdiction in lawsuits arising from, say, family law, tort, or contract. The law which is applied is sometimes referred to as the "proper law." Dépeçage is an issue within choice of law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction</span> 1980 multilateral treaty

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction or Hague Abduction Convention is a multilateral treaty that provides an expeditious method to return a child who was wrongfully taken by a parent from one country to another country. In order for the Convention to apply, both countries must be Contracting States; i.e. both must have adopted the Convention.

In law, the enforcement of foreign judgments is the recognition and enforcement in one jurisdiction of judgments rendered in another ("foreign") jurisdiction. Foreign judgments may be recognized based on bilateral or multilateral treaties or understandings, or unilaterally without an express international agreement.

In conflict of laws, the term lex loci is a shorthand version of the choice of law rules that determine the lex causae.

In modern society, the role of marriage and its termination through divorce have become political issues. As people live increasingly mobile lives, the conflict of laws and its choice of law rules are highly relevant to determine:

In contract law, the lex loci contractus is the Law Latin term meaning "law of the place where the contract is made". It refers to resolving contractual disputes among parties of differing jurisdictions by using the law of the jurisdiction in which the contract was created.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brussels Regime</span> Rules regulating jurisdiction of courts

The Brussels Regime is a set of rules regulating which courts have jurisdiction in legal disputes of a civil or commercial nature between individuals resident in different member states of the European Union (EU) and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). It has detailed rules assigning jurisdiction for the dispute to be heard and governs the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hague Trust Convention</span> 1985 treaty on international trust law

The Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition, or Hague Trust Convention is a multilateral treaty developed by the Hague Conference on Private International Law on the Law Applicable to Trusts. It concluded on 1 July 1985, entered into force 1 January 1992, and is as of September 2017 ratified by 14 countries. The Convention uses a harmonised definition of a trust, which is the subject of the convention, and sets conflict rules for resolving problems in the choice of the applicable law. The key provisions of the Convention are:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hague Convention on Parental Responsibility and Protection of Children</span>

The Hague Convention on parental responsibility and protection of children, or Hague Convention 1996, officially Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children or Hague Convention 1996 is a convention of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. It covers civil measures of protection concerning children, ranging from orders concerning parental responsibility and contact to public measures of protection or care, and from matters of representation to the protection of children's property. It is therefore much broader in scope than two earlier conventions of the HCCH on the subject.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian contract law</span> Overview of contract law in Canada

Canadian contract law is composed of two parallel systems: a common law framework outside Québec and a civil law framework within Québec. Outside Québec, Canadian contract law is derived from English contract law, though it has developed distinctly since Canadian Confederation in 1867. While Québecois contract law was originally derived from that which existed in France at the time of Québec's annexation into the British Empire, it was overhauled and codified first in the Civil Code of Lower Canada and later in the current Civil Code of Quebec, which codifies most elements of contract law as part of its provisions on the broader law of obligations. Individual common law provinces have codified certain contractual rules in a Sale of Goods Act, resembling equivalent statutes elsewhere in the Commonwealth. As most aspects of contract law in Canada are the subject of provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution, contract law may differ even between the country's common law provinces and territories. Conversely; as the law regarding bills of exchange and promissory notes, trade and commerce, maritime law, and banking among other related areas is governed by federal law under Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867; aspects of contract law pertaining to these topics are harmonised between Québec and the common law provinces.

International matrimonial law is an area of private international law. The area specifically deals with relations between spouses and former spouses on issues of marriage, divorce and child custody. In the last 50 years, the States Members of the Hague Conference on Private International Law have attempted to harmonize domestic matrimonial laws and judicial rulings across international borders in these areas.

The term international child abduction is generally synonymous with international parental kidnapping,child snatching, and child stealing.

The Convention of 1961 Concerning the Powers of Authorities and the Law Applicable in Respect of the Protection of Infants, French: Convention du 5 octobre 1961 concernant la compétence des autorités et la loi applicable en matière de protection des mineurs, or Hague Protection of Minors Convention is a multilateral convention of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. The 1961 Convention emphasized the concept of the "interests of the child" as a basis for authorities of the child's nationality to overrule the authorities of the child's habitual residence. It built upon prior efforts to create successful multilateral treaties and brought an innovation in terminology by creating a compromise between advocates of "nationality" as the determining factor for jurisdiction and advocates for the modern fact-centric model of "habitual residence." The convention also included expanded language to encompass both judicial and administrative authorities in response to the Boll case. Of particularly special note, the drafters of the 1961 Convention expressly considered a provision addressing the removal of a child from their habitual residence with an intent to evade rightful jurisdiction—primarily for child custody reasons. This first attempt to codify international child abduction failed due to an inability to agree on a definition or manner of describing the phenomenon, with a number of countries that adhered to the principle of nationality regulating personal child and family law unable to classify their nationals removing children from foreign countries to their home state as illegal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance</span>

The Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, also referred to as the Hague Maintenance Convention or the Hague Child Support Convention is a multilateral treaty governing the enforcement of judicial decisions regarding child support extraterritorially. It is one of a number of conventions in the area of private international law of the Hague Conference on Private International Law in 2007. The convention is open to all states as well as to Regional Economic Integration Organizations as long as they are composed of sovereign states only and have sovereignty in the content of the convention. The convention entered into force on 1 January 2013 between Norway and Albania, with Bosnia-Herzegovina (2013), Ukraine (2013), the European Union, Montenegro (2017), United States (2017), Turkey (2017), Kazakhstan (2017), Brazil (2017), Honduras (2017), Belarus (2018), Guyana (2020), Nicaragua (2020), United Kingdom (2021), Serbia (2021), New Zealand (2021), Ecuador (2022), Botswana (2022), Philippines (2022), Azerbaijan (2023) and Canada following suit. Because the EU acceptance of the convention applies in 26 EU countries, the convention applies in 47 countries worldwide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Maintenance regulation</span> Regulation of EU, determining which court has jurisdiction in the event of a conflict

The Maintenance Regulation (EC) No 4/2009, formally the Council Regulation (EC) on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, is a European Union Regulation on conflict of law issues regarding maintenance obligations. The regulation governs which courts have jurisdiction and which law it should apply. It further governs the recognition and enforcement of decisions. The regulation amends the Brussels Regulation, which covers jurisdiction in legal disputes of a civil or commercial nature between individuals more broadly.

Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the appeal of a district court's decision to return a child to his country of residence is not precluded by the child's departure from the United States. It arose from the divorce proceedings of Mr. and Ms. Chafin; she wanted their daughter to live with her in Scotland, while he wanted her to remain in the United States with him.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.