2 total
Relocation denied; child’s primary residence to remain in Toronto.
In this original family law application, the applicant sought an order permitting the child’s primary residence to be moved from Toronto to Vancouver, while the respondent sought primary residence in Toronto.
Applying the best interests analysis under the Divorce Act and the relocation framework from Gordon v. Goertz, as modified for original applications by Bjornson, the court held that the child’s need for stability and maximum contact with both parents outweighed the advantages of the applicant’s support network in British Columbia.
The court found both parties to be loving and capable parents, but concluded that relocation would significantly disrupt the child’s established home environment and materially reduce meaningful in-person contact with the respondent.
The court ordered joint decision-making, continued equal time-sharing until September 1, 2022, then primary residence with the respondent in Toronto, specified parenting time with the applicant, and modified child support at 50% of table in light of travel costs.
The court struck the vexatious respondent's urgent custody motion as an abuse of process.
The respondent brought an urgent motion seeking custody of the parties' 14-year-old son and a comprehensive case review, alleging the applicant failed to follow COVID-19 guidelines and that a prior review was not held.
The respondent also made conspiracy allegations.
The applicant sought dismissal, highlighting the respondent's prior designation as a vexatious litigant and the denial of leave for a similar custody motion in April 2020.
The court denied leave to the respondent's motion and struck it under Family Law Rules 1(8) and 1(8.2), finding it to be an abuse of process.
The court noted the motion was almost identical to a previously denied one, new allegations were unsubstantiated, the respondent failed to meet conditions for parenting time resumption, and conspiracy theories had been previously rejected.
