Hambley v. Sharp

Hambley v. Sharp

On the interim application the respondent failed to satisfy the requirements of s.69: the relocation was not established to be in good faith nor shown to be in the child’s best interests given the child’s need for stability and uninterrupted full‑time schooling in Youbou. The court therefore prohibited relocation to Victoria/Saanich on an interim basis, retained existing shared parenting until April 4, 2022 to allow respondent time to secure local accommodation, and ordered an alternative schedule (claimant primary residence; respondent four of five weekends) if respondent does not return by that date; reallocation of parenting responsibilities was refused.

Citation
2022 BCSC 397
Parties
Claimant: Jarret Ryan Hambley; Respondent: Lisa Danielle Sharp
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Family Law — Relocation (mobility) Application Under the Family Law Act / Interim Application/hearing
Outcome
Application granted in part and dismissed in part: relocation prohibited on an interim basis; parenting responsibilities not reallocated; conditional parenting schedule change if respondent fails to secure Cowichan Valley accommodation by April 4, 2022; other relief dismissed or adjourned.
Legal Topics
Relocation, Best Interests of the Child, Parenting Time/schedule, Section 211 Psychological Assessment, Costs
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Custody and Parenting Mobility/relocation Relocation Best Interests of the Child Parenting Time/schedule Section 211 Psychological Assessment Costs

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jarret Ryan Hambley

Claimant

Lisa Danielle Sharp

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law — Relocation (mobility) Application Under the Family Law Act / Interim Application/hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent may relocate the child from Youbou to Victoria/Saanich
  2. 2 Whether the respondent satisfied the onus to show the relocation was made in good faith and was in the child’s best interests under Family Law Act s.69
  3. 3 Whether parenting responsibilities should be reallocated under s.41 and s.45

Ratio Decidendi

On the interim application the respondent failed to satisfy the requirements of s.69: the relocation was not established to be in good faith nor shown to be in the child’s best interests given the child’s need for stability and uninterrupted full‑time schooling in Youbou. The court therefore prohibited relocation to Victoria/Saanich on an interim basis, retained existing shared parenting until April 4, 2022 to allow respondent time to secure local accommodation, and ordered an alternative schedule (claimant primary residence; respondent four of five weekends) if respondent does not return by that date; reallocation of parenting responsibilities was refused.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part and dismissed in part: relocation prohibited on an interim basis; parenting responsibilities not reallocated; conditional parenting schedule change if respondent fails to secure Cowichan Valley accommodation by April 4, 2022; other relief dismissed or adjourned.

Orders

  • Pursuant to Family Law Act s.69(2) respondent Lisa Danielle Sharp is prohibited from relocating with the child Nola Quinn Hambley‑Sharp from Youbou, BC to Victoria/Saanich, BC (interim)
  • Existing two‑two‑five‑five shared parenting schedule to continue until April 4, 2022; respondent must secure accommodation in Cowichan Valley by that date to maintain status quo