Malina A. Roshan

This motion concerned a mobility dispute where the respondent father sought an order for the applicant mother to re-establish residency with the child in Brampton, while the applicant mother sought approval for her relocation to Toronto.

The court, applying the 'best interests of the child' principle and factors from Gordon v Goertz and Plumley v Plumley, found compelling reasons for the mother's move, including childcare and financial benefits.

The court dismissed the father's motion and permitted the child to reside with the mother in Toronto, determining that the relocation was in the child's best interests despite arguments regarding the status quo.

During the COVID-19 court suspension, the respondent sought an urgent access motion for their baby daughter, and the applicant filed a cross-motion for temporary custody, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and property relief.

The court applied a higher urgency test based on the Superior Court of Justice Notice to the Profession dated March 15, 2020.

Both the motion and cross-motion were dismissed as not meeting the urgency criteria, which required risks akin to child safety or well-being, or imminent financial harm.

The court emphasized the importance of parental negotiation to resolve access issues, especially during the crisis, citing recent jurisprudence on maintaining contact with both parents.