The Children's Aid Society of Brant brought a status review application.
Within this, the respondent mother, A.C., brought a motion to relocate with the child, J.C-T., from Brantford to Petawawa.
The respondent father, J.T., opposed this move and brought a cross-motion seeking to prohibit the relocation or, alternatively, for primary care of the child.
The court applied the mobility provisions of the Children’s Law Reform Act (CLRA) to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYSFA) proceeding, finding that the proposed move constituted a relocation.
The court determined that both parties bore the burden of proof on this interim motion.
The mother failed to demonstrate that the relocation was in the child's best interests, considering factors such as impact on father's access, lack of confirmed supports in the new location, and the mother's ongoing mental health concerns.
The father successfully demonstrated that it was in the child's best interests to remain in Brantford.
The mother's motion to relocate was dismissed, and she was prohibited from moving the child's primary residence.