Gregory J. Welch

The applicant mother sought an order to relocate the parties' two children to Winnipeg, where she had secured employment and established a new relationship.

The respondent father opposed the move, arguing the children should remain in their current community in Northwestern Ontario where they had lived for several years and where he had been their primary caregiver for the past two years.

The court applied the best interests of the child test and the mobility factors from Gordon v. Goertz and Berry v. Berry.

The court found that the mother offered greater permanence, certainty, and stability, given her secure employment and stable relationship, compared to the father's uncertain economic future.

The court ordered that the children reside primarily with the mother in Winnipeg, with generous access to the father.

This trial decision addresses a custody and access dispute between separated parents, Kathryn Margaret Moyer and Robert William Donald Moyer, concerning their two daughters.

The applicant initially sought sole custody, while the respondent sought joint custody, later amending to sole custody.

The court considered an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) report, which recommended sole custody to the applicant, but ultimately disagreed with its conclusions, finding the applicant exaggerated behavioral problems and that her parenting style reinforced issues.

The court emphasized the children's well-being in both households, as supported by teacher testimony, and found that despite communication challenges, the parents could make important decisions.

The final order granted joint custody with a shared parenting schedule, transitioning from a four-day on/four-day off rotation to a week on/week off schedule, and included provisions for child support, extraordinary expenses, post-secondary education, and mandatory assessment and therapy at a local mental health center.

The applicant brought an interim motion seeking primary care and control of the parties’ young child, child support based on the respondent’s alleged income of $65,000, reimbursement of daycare expenses, and continuation of extended health coverage.

The parties had been exercising an equal week‑on/week‑off shared parenting arrangement between two communities since separation.

The court held that where a consensual shared parenting arrangement had been functioning for approximately 18 months and both parents were acknowledged to be capable, a compelling reason was required to alter the arrangement on an interim basis.

Finding conflicting evidence and no pressing need for change, the court maintained the existing shared parenting arrangement pending trial.

The court also determined interim child support based on the respondent’s lower current income and ordered proportionate sharing of daycare costs.