Canada Case Law

XD v. SZ

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Applicant proved a material change in circumstances (contempt and disruption of mother–child relationship) and, after weighing PSA s.18(6) factors and s.18H relocation factors, the court found the factors overwhelmingly favoured the Applicant; therefore the Final order was varied to grant primary care and decision-making to the Applicant and to authorize relocation to Ontario with a specified parenting time regime for the Respondent and travel and enforcement safeguards.

Source excerpt

• Variation of parenting order
• Best interests of the child
• Relocation/mobility
• Parenting time and schedule
• Contempt and enforcement
• Preservation order

Read case analysis

NF v. JF

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

On a balance of probabilities the court found NF should have primary care and sole decision-making for CF, JF bears the onus to disprove relocation because CF spends the vast majority of time with NF, statutory notice of relocation was not strictly complied with but was waived due to effective notice and risk of family violence, and relocation to California (or other continental US postings of NF's partner) was authorized. The court fashioned a specific block visitation schedule and ordered that, in lieu of monthly table child support, JF share CF's transportation expenses as specified. Each…

Source excerpt

• Best interests of the child
• Relocation/mobility
• Parenting time
• Sole decision-making
• Burden of proof
• Notice requirements

Read case analysis

XD v. SZ

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Respondent, being substantially successful, was awarded costs because the applicant lacked a bona fide belief in the move (motivated by career and to restrict father's contact), there were no principled grounds to refuse costs, legal aid representation does not bar a costs award, and Rule 77 permits a lump sum award; a $7,500 lump sum payable $250/month balances partial indemnity for respondent with not impeding applicant's parenting time.

Source excerpt

• Parenting arrangements
• Mobility/relocation
• Costs assessment
• Legal aid and costs
• Tariff adjustments

Read case analysis

XD v. SZ

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Father did not agree or acquiesce to the move and the mother failed to comply with statutory notice requirements; there is no presumption in favor of relocation because the mother was not in substantial compliance with the consent order; relocation was deemed a material change but the mother failed to prove relocation is in the children’s best interests and her allegations of violence and abuse were not proven on the balance of probabilities; accordingly the court denied relocation and varied the parenting order to shared decision-making with a week-about residential schedule and other protec…

Source excerpt

• Relocation notice requirements
• Best interests of the child
• Variation of parenting order
• Burden of proof
• Allegations of family violence and abuse
• Parental alienation

Read case analysis

Hambley v. Sharp

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On an interim relocation application, the court prohibited the child’s move from Youbou to Victoria/Saanich, kept shared parenting in place temporarily, and refused to reallocate parenting responsibilities.

• Relocation
• Best interests of the child
• Parenting time/schedule
• Section 211 psychological assessment
• Costs
• Best-interests-of-the-child

Read case analysis

NS v. JB

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Because the parties were operating under a substantially shared parenting arrangement the presumption against relocation applied under s.18H(1)(b); the applicant failed to rebut that presumption on the balance of probabilities as her plan was speculative and would cause significant disruption to the children’s stability and relationships, therefore the mobility application was dismissed and the shared custody arrangement was continued (with an alternative joint‑custody/primary‑care to father ordering pathway if the mother still relocates).

Source excerpt

• Shared parenting
• Best interests of the child
• Parental alienation
• Parenting support act s.18h

Read case analysis

F.M. v. A.M.

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

There was a material change of circumstances; the Parenting and Support Act governs relocation; father was not 'substantially involved' for s.18H purposes so the presumption favoured relocation; on balance the mother satisfied that relocation to Ontario is in the child's best interests provided specific conditions and a detailed parenting-time regime, and primary care remains with the mother.

Source excerpt

• Relocation/mobility
• Variation of parenting order
• Best interests of the child
• Notice requirements

Read case analysis

Fifield v. den Hollander

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The respondent rebutted the statutory presumption because the proposed relocation would drastically reduce the father's parenting time and impose prohibitive travel costs and disruption to the child's family network; accordingly relocation was denied and the court revised the parenting schedule and ordered child support consistent with the Guidelines.

Source excerpt

• Relocation
• Best interests of the child
• Parenting time
• Child support
• Variation of order
• Notice

Read case analysis

A.D.J. v. C.E.J.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Relocation was denied because it was not in the children’s best interests, but spousal support was ordered on an imputed income basis.

• Relocation of child
• Best interests of the child
• Imputed income
• Spousal support advisory guidelines
• Summary trial appropriateness
• Child-relocation

Read case analysis

Head v. Brown

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Although the court accepted the engagement and proposed relocation constituted a material change permitting review, the applicant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that relocating the child to Guelph was in the child’s best interests; the child’s stability, continuity of schooling in the French immersion program, existing support network and the father’s demonstrated fitness outweighed the benefits of relocation, so the child must remain in the father’s primary care and the relocation request was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Relocation
• Best interests of the child
• Variation of parenting order
• Shared parenting
• Statutory presumptions under parenting and support act

Read case analysis