C.V. v. T.S.C.

C.V. v. T.S.C.

There was a material change in circumstances due to the mother's proposed relocation; after applying Gordon v. Goertz factors and weighing the children's need to remain with the custodial parent against continued meaningful contact with the father and extended family, the court concluded relocation to Ontario was in the children's best interests because it materially improved the mother's ability to provide for the children; accordingly the relocation was authorized with specific parenting-time, communication and transport conditions and child maintenance was suspended due to the father's lack of income, subject to review.

Citation
2016 NSFC 33
Parties
Applicant: C.V.; Respondent: T.S.C.
Court
Nova Scotia Family Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Variation Application Relocation/mobility in Family Court / Contested Hearing and Oral Decision; Variation Order Issued; Review Hearing Scheduled
Outcome
Relocation to Ontario authorized with variation of parenting time and suspension of child maintenance; joint custody retained with primary residence and decision-making to mother; specific contact, transport and review provisions ordered.
Legal Topics
Mobility Application, Best Interests of the Child, Variation of Custody and Access, Suspension of Child Support, Parenting Time Schedule
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Custody Relocation/mobility Child Support Maintenance and Custody Act Mobility Application Best Interests of the Child Variation of Custody and Access +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C.V.

Applicant

T.S.C.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Variation Application Relocation/mobility in Family Court / Contested Hearing and Oral Decision; Variation Order Issued; Review Hearing Scheduled

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed relocation of children to Ontario should be authorized
  2. 2 Whether there has been a material change in circumstances warranting variation
  3. 3 What parenting plan serves the best interests of the children given relocation

Ratio Decidendi

There was a material change in circumstances due to the mother's proposed relocation; after applying Gordon v. Goertz factors and weighing the children's need to remain with the custodial parent against continued meaningful contact with the father and extended family, the court concluded relocation to Ontario was in the children's best interests because it materially improved the mother's ability to provide for the children; accordingly the relocation was authorized with specific parenting-time, communication and transport conditions and child maintenance was suspended due to the father's lack of income, subject to review.

Court Disposition

Relocation to Ontario authorized with variation of parenting time and suspension of child maintenance; joint custody retained with primary residence and decision-making to mother; specific contact, transport and review provisions ordered.

Orders

  • Relocation to Ontario by T.S.C. with the children authorized; relocation shall not occur prior to August 1, 2016
  • Children to remain in joint custody; primary care and primary residence to continue with T.S.C.; T.S.C. to retain primary decision-making authority but must consult C.V. on significant parenting decisions