Canada Case Law

Shipton v. Shipton

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding the trial judge's relocation decision must be set aside because his written reasons disclose material errors of fact and law: significant misapprehension and omission of evidence regarding alleged coercive control, unfounded assumptions about the mother's and maternal family's attitude to the child's Indian heritage and community in Ireland, improper recharacterization of the relocation as a support case, and erroneous application of the burden/presumption under s.16.93; the proper remedy is a new trial on an expedited basis if parties cannot ag…

Source excerpt

• Best interests of the child
• Relocation
• Burden of proof/presumption
• Coercive control
• Reasonable apprehension of bias
• Support vs relocation

Read case analysis

Gill v. Kaur

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

In a parenting relocation dispute, the court found the child’s habitual residence remained in Surrey, but allowed a limited temporary Spokane relocation and a later partial Bellingham relocation.

• Relocation notice
• Habitual residence
• Parenting time
• Custody/decision-making
• S.211 report
• Family violence

Read case analysis

A.T.N.H. v. J.L.K.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court ordered the children returned to Revelstoke after an unilateral move to Fort Saskatchewan, and reinstated interim shared parenting time.

• Family law act ss.45-48
• Best interests of the child (s.37.2)
• Relocation consultation requirement (s.48)
• Habitual residence
• Enforcement of costs
• Child-relocation

Read case analysis

J.T.P. v. K.S.

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed a stay application in a family appeal: no jurisdiction to stay Family Law Act orders, and no stay of the relocation order to Germany.

• Stay of execution
• Relocation of children
• Jurisdiction to grant stays
• Parenting orders
• Family law act s.234
• Divorce act s.16

Read case analysis

A.J.M. v. C.J.M.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court ordered a child returned to North Vancouver after a unilateral, concealed relocation to Duncan without the required statutory notice.

• Relocation notice
• Parenting time
• Guardianship restoration
• Best interests of the child
• S.211 report
• Consent orders

Read case analysis

J.R.A. v. L.C.D.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Interim relocation application dismissed. The court found the mother’s secret move to Vancouver was in bad faith and not in the children’s best interests.

• Relocation of children
• Best interests of the child
• Family violence
• Parenting time
• Interim orders
• Notice requirements

Read case analysis

SO v. TO

Court

Nova Scotia Family Court

The court found subsection s18H(e) applied (no order or agreement creating substantial equality or vast majority); on weighing all best interest factors the mother's detailed plan (family support, proximate French-language schooling and educational supports, housing and employment) outweighed the reduction in the father's parenting time caused by relocation; accordingly relocation was authorized and specific parenting time, joint decision-making, retroactive and prospective child support and proportional sharing of section 7 expenses were ordered.

Source excerpt

• Relocation
• Best interests of the child
• Parenting time
• Burden of proof
• Retroactive child support
• Section 7 expenses

Read case analysis

F.K.L. v. D.M.A.T.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court denied the mother’s relocation request, ordered the child to remain in Gold River during the school year, granted retroactive child support, and set parenting-coordinator fees at 75/25.

• Relocation
• Best interests of the child
• Parenting time
• Retroactive child support
• Parenting coordinator
• Costs

Read case analysis

Tovmasyan v. Petrosian

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The father failed to establish a serious question on appeal because he filed a thin record without trial transcripts to demonstrate palpable and overriding factual error; he failed to show irreparable harm (children would not suffer and monetary hardship is not irreparable); and the balance of convenience and best interests of the children favor maintaining the trial judge's relocation and support orders; accordingly the stay is denied.

Source excerpt

• Relocation
• Parenting time
• Imputed income
• Stay pending appeal
• Best interests of the child
• Irreparable harm

Read case analysis

M.J.V. v. J.R.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court authorized relocating C.V. to Edmonton, holding the move was in his best interests and that s. 16.93(2) placed the burden on Ms. R.

• Relocation under divorce act s.16.9-s.16.93
• Best interests of the child (s.16)
• Burden of proof on relocation (s.16.93)
• Parenting time and decision-making responsibility
• Child support reassessment and financial disclosure
• Child-relocation

Read case analysis