The appellant father sought to relocate with his seven-year-old child from Kincardine to Whitby, relying on a notice provision in a consent order.
The motion judge held that a motion to change was required and dismissed the motion, finding no material change in circumstances.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing that the proposed move contradicted the schooling and access clauses of the order, necessitating a motion to change.
The court also found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the father's concerns about the stigma of past false abuse allegations were foreseeable at the time of the original order.
The appeal and leave to appeal costs were dismissed.
