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 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. 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. However, much of the case law on habitual residence suggests it is  objective, seeking evidence of physical presence over a considerable period of time. The term arguably does have a subjective element like domicile and indeed may, at times, be a factor in considering an individuals habitual residenceP. A. v. K.A., 1987 ABCA 52, at para 10 (CanLII), URL retrieved on 2021-04-15 . This is particularly true if habitual residence it is considered synonymous with ordinary residence which requires as analysis of a persons "ordinary mode of living"  Nafie v Badawy, 2015 ABCA 36, at para 68 (CanLII) . 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. In comparrison , 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 ()  P.A. v. K.A., 1987 ABCA 52, at para 8 (CanLII), URL retrieved on 2021-03-26 . 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. 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.
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 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. 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. 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 individuals habitual residence.P. A. v. K.A., 1987 ABCA 52, at para 10 (CanLII), URL retrieved on 2021-04-15 This is particularly true if habitual residence it is considered synonymous with ordinary residence which requires an analysis of a persons "ordinary mode of living" . Nafie v Badawy, 2015 ABCA 36, at para 68 (CanLII) URL retrieved on 2021-04-17 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. 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 () . P.A. v. K.A., 1987 ABCA 52, at para 8 (CanLII), URL retrieved on 2021-03-26 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. 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.
R
,
;
R
However, much
Much
A
purely
R
The term arguably
However, there is an argument to be made that habitual residence
R
and indeed
since intention
R
residenceP.
residence.P.
D
.
R
as
an
A
.
R
.
URL retrieved on 2021-04-17
R
comparrison
comparison
A
.
D
.
R
, this
. This