C.P v. L.D

C.P v. L.D

CP established a material change in circumstances (change to full‑time stable employment and long‑standing primary caregiving role plus the mother’s failure to exercise parenting time as contemplated by the 2016 order), the statutory presumption in s.18H(1)(a) applied and LD failed to rebut it on balance of probabilities; the relocation to Alberta was therefore found to be in the child’s best interests and the 2016 consent order was varied to permit relocation with specified supervised parenting provisions for LD.

Citation
2021 NSSC 230
Parties
Applicant: C.P.; Respondent: L.D.
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Family Variation of Custody and Relocation / Variation Application Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Application granted: variation of 2016 Consent Order permitting relocation to Alberta; CP confirmed as primary caregiver with final decision-making; LD retains supervised parenting with specified conditions.
Legal Topics
Relocation Request, Variation of Consent Order, Best Interests of the Child, Supervised Access
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Custody Relocation Child Protection Relocation Request Variation of Consent Order Best Interests of the Child Supervised Access

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C.P.

Applicant

L.D.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Variation of Custody and Relocation / Variation Application Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there has been a material change in circumstances to vary the 2016 Consent Order
  2. 2 Whether the proposed relocation to Alberta is in the child’s best interests
  3. 3 What parenting arrangements should be ordered post-relocation

Ratio Decidendi

CP established a material change in circumstances (change to full‑time stable employment and long‑standing primary caregiving role plus the mother’s failure to exercise parenting time as contemplated by the 2016 order), the statutory presumption in s.18H(1)(a) applied and LD failed to rebut it on balance of probabilities; the relocation to Alberta was therefore found to be in the child’s best interests and the 2016 consent order was varied to permit relocation with specified supervised parenting provisions for LD.

Court Disposition

Application granted: variation of 2016 Consent Order permitting relocation to Alberta; CP confirmed as primary caregiver with final decision-making; LD retains supervised parenting with specified conditions.

Orders

  • CP permitted to relocate to Alberta with ADP and retain primary care and final decision-making authority
  • ADP to spend a minimum of three weeks in Cape Breton each summer