The applicant sought to relocate the parties’ children from Bracebridge to Stittsville following the loss of her employment and the acceptance of new employment in Ottawa.
The court applied the relocation framework from Gordon v. Goertz and found that the change in employment and residence constituted a material change in circumstances.
In assessing the best interests of the children, the court considered the existing parenting arrangement, the children’s greater attachment to the primary caregiver, the views of the children, and the disruption associated with either permitting or denying the move.
The respondent raised allegations of parental alienation and improper motive, but the court rejected those claims and accepted that the relocation was driven primarily by employment circumstances.
The court concluded that the children’s best interests favoured relocation with the applicant while preserving meaningful parenting time with the respondent.
