Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FO-12-000042-007 Date: 2025-09-24 Ontario Court of Justice

Between: Murray Anthony Littler Applicant

— AND —

Christina Patricia Lynn Fowler Respondent

Before: Justice B. C Oldham

Heard on: July 29, 2025, August 25, 2025 and September 2 and 17, 2025

Reasons for Decision released on: September 24, 2025

Counsel:

• M. Littler.......................................................................................................... self-represented
• J. Santucci/T. Fowler............................................................... counsel for the respondent

Decision

OLDHAM J.:

Background

[1] This family has been before the Courts since 2012. The child at the center of the litigation is Mason Keith Fredrick Zappacosta born on […], 2011 ("Mason"). The latest final order was made by this Court on September 24, 2021 (the "Current Order"). The Current Order confirms that the Respondent Mother, Christina Fowler (the "RM") continues to have sole decision-making responsibility for Mason and that Mason will continue to be primarily resident with the RM.

[2] The Current Order also provides the Applicant Father, Murray Littler (the "AF") with regular alternate weekend parenting time from Friday at 5:00 pm to Sunday at 7:00 pm, extending to Monday or Friday, if the parenting time falls on a holiday, plus one additional weekend every other month; one week in July and one week in August to be added to the regularly scheduled weekends for a total of seven or nine consecutive days for each week scheduled in the summer. The AF also has parenting time on Father's Day from noon until 7:00 pm and on the AF's birthday, alternating Family Day, Easter and Thanksgiving weekends and shared Christmas holidays.

[3] The AF regularly and consistently exercises parenting time during his scheduled times.

[4] The other important final order is that of Justice Lainevool dated November 25, 2020 which provides that the AF is to pay the RM $306 per month in child support based on an annual income of $35,202, plus $100 per month, commencing February 1, 2021, for arrears fixed at $2,329. This order is repeated and confirmed in paragraphs 9 and 10 of Justice Lainevool's final order of December 8, 2020 (the "Child Support Order").

Procedural History

[5] The AF commenced a Motion to Change ("MTC") on March 5, 2025 citing concerns that the RM was planning on moving to New Brunswick.

[6] The RM did not provide formal notice of her intention to relocate as required by s. 39.3 of the Children's Law Reform Act (the "CLRA") until at least May 13, 2025. Notably, this was the same day that the RM finalized the purchase of a home in Woodstock, New Brunswick and almost two months after the RM sold her home in Seguin, Ontario. There is no affidavit of service attached to the Notice and the AF claims that it was served on him by email on May 21, 2025 at 12:22 pm.

[7] On May 21, 2025, the RM served and filed a motion seeking permission to relocate to Woodstock, New Brunswick and proposing that Mason have parenting time with the AF one weekend a month and half the summer break (one month), half of the Christmas break (one week) and March Break in alternating years. The parenting time proposed was conditional upon the AF sharing in the cost of transportation between New Brunswick and Ontario.

[8] Following an incident with the RM's husband Adam Fowler ("Adam"), the AF brought an emergency motion dated May 27, 2025 seeking temporary custody of Mason; an order that Mason reside with him during the week providing for supervised parenting time at the RM's home during the third weekend of each month; and order prohibiting the consumption or use of any drugs or alcohol 12 hours prior to any parenting time; and an order prohibiting the RM from moving Mason to New Brunswick.

[9] On May 28, 2025, the Court ordered that the motions be set for hearing and scheduled a return date of June 11, 2025. The RM was prohibited from removing Mason from the Province of Ontario, until further order of the Court. At that time, the Court noted that the RM intended on remaining in Ontario with Mason until the completion of the school year. The hearing date was set so that it could be heard prior to the completion of the school year.

[10] The AF then brought a further motion dated June 4, 2025 without specific relief but with supporting 'notes' suggesting similar relief with the focus being on the RM's proposed move to New Brunswick.

[11] Both parties were self-represented at this stage.

[12] On June 11, 2025, the RM sought an adjournment of the motion as she had just retained counsel. The adjournment was granted with a return date of July 29, 2025 for the hearing of the motions.

[13] The RM's motion dated May 21, 2025 was withdrawn by Counsel for the RM and replaced with a motion dated July 4, 2025. The motion sought permission to relocate and provided for parenting time for the AF for one consecutive week during the Christmas break; four consecutive weeks during the summer break and March Break, Easter and Thanksgiving in alternate years, with the RM paying the costs for transportation to Toronto airport. The AF being responsible to transportation from Toronto airport to Parry Sound.

[14] In the alternative, the RM sought to obtain a Voice of the Child Report ("VOC"), with a jointly retained clinician and permission to travel with Mason to New Brunswick pending the return of the relocation motion, or September 1, 2025, whichever comes first.

[15] The motion was heard on July 29, 2025. Neither party conducted cross-examination on the affidavits. The only affidavits before the Court were ones from the AF sworn on May 27, 2025 and the RM sworn on July 4, 2025. The AF also provided a very brief affidavit from Tyler Crisp-Foster (the AF's brother and Mason's paternal uncle) sworn on May 26, 2025. The AF also filed a "Response to Tina's Form 14B Motion" dated June 11, 2024 and a "Response to Tina's Form 14A" which were unsworn statements. These responses formed part of the record on the motion with the consent of counsel.

[16] Given the urgency, Counsel confirmed the request that the matter be addressed as a temporary order, pending a final determination on the MTC.

[17] After hearing submissions, the Court turned to the RM's alternate relief being a request for a VOC Report.

[18] This is a case where it is very clear that the child has been embroiled in his parent's litigation and disputes over the years. The Affidavit of Tyler Crisp-Foster states "I asked Mason what he wanted to do and how he felt about the situation…." The materials filed by AF and RM make it clear that both parents have discussed the proposed move with Mason. The RM reports that "while Mason will understandably miss his friends in Ontario, Mason is excited about the opportunity to attend a high school and extend his friend group to a different Province." The RM alleges that the AF's self-help methods have negatively impacted Mason creating periods of unplanned separation from her and his half-siblings.

[19] The AF acknowledges two times where Mason's time with him was not in accordance with the Current Order. The first being an extended stay following an incident with Adam on May 23, 2025. The AF claims that Mason was afraid to return to his mother's home as a result of Adam's aggressive behavior toward the AF and his fear that if he went home the RM would not allow him to go back to his father's. The second time being June 23, 2025. The AF claims that Mason called him and asked him to pick him up, believing that his mother was taking him to New Brunswick that weekend. The AF claims that Mason "not only expressed to myself and other family members that he does not want to go to New Brunswick, but also shared with his teacher". He claims that Mason told his mother that the does not want to go, but her response was that he does not have a choice.

[20] The RM claims that she was only taking Mason to Ottawa as a graduation gift on the weekend of June 23, 2025 and that the AF overreacted and improperly removed Mason from her home. The AF's concerns are, however, somewhat grounded in the Notice of Relocation which states that June 23, 2025 is the date of relocation. Furthermore, it is undisputed that Adam and the other three children continued on from Ottawa to New Brunswick and that Mason's siblings did not complete they last few days of school. Mason's last day of school was June 28, 2025.

[21] The AF supports the involvement of the OCL and brought Mason to court on July 29, 2025 so that the judge could speak with him, without either parent being present. Mason was excused from the Courtroom, but given the urgency of the situation, the Court canvassed with the parties whether the Court should meet with Mason to make inquires of his wishes and preferences. Counsel for the RM suggested that a VOC report would be a preferable approach.

[22] This Court would not lightly engage a child but is of the view that it is important in this case to obtain an independent assessment of Mason's views and preferences. A VOC Report is the preferrable approach. Accordingly, the order requesting the engagement of the OCL for a VOC report was made on July 29, 2025. The motion was returned on August 25, 2025 with the hope that the VOC report could be completed. The Court also made an order that Mason have parenting time with the RM in New Brunswick from July 31, 2025 to August 10, 2025, so that he would have a better sense of that option and have time with his siblings. Mason had been in the AF's care since July 1, 2025 when the RM left for New Brunswick.

[23] The Court also ordered that both parties provide an update to the Court regarding the parenting time with the RM so that the Court could have evidence around the exchanges, travel and level of communication and co-operation.

[24] Unfortunately, not much had been accomplished by August 25, 2025. The RM filed her Intake within the required filing deadlines. The AF did not file his Intake until August 19, 2025. The Order requesting a VOC Report had not been processed or assigned as of August 25, 2025.

[25] Neither party complied with the filing deadlines for the affidavit's updating the Court on Mason's trip to New Brunswick. The RM sent an email update the evening before court, but it was not served with appropriate notice for either the AF or the Court to properly review the information.

[26] On August 25, 2025, Counsel for the RM brought a motion to be removed as counsel of record. That motion was not opposed, and Counsel was removed. The RM has been self-represented since August 25, 2025.

[27] This mobility motion was then adjourned to September 2, 2025 for a further update with respect to the engagement of the OCL and to provide the parents with a further opportunity to provide updating affidavits. New filing deadlines were provided.

[28] Unfortunately, these filing deadlines were not met either. The Court had no sworn evidence regarding Mason's time in New Brunswick. The RM advised that she had difficulty completing the paperwork in New Brunswick as they would not swear an affidavit for her given that it was for a court in Ontario. She filed an unsworn affidavit with a motion seeking additional parenting time.

[29] The AF confirmed his discussions with the RM and his agreement that Mason could go back to New Brunswick for a further visit. The OCL had been assigned and had met with Mason. One final meeting scheduled for September 5, 2025. The AF proposed that Mason could go visit his mother from September 5 to 14, 2025. School in Parry Sound had commenced but was being held virtually due to the delayed completion of the construction of the new school. The AF saw this as an opportunity for Mason to spend time in New Brunswick without interfering with his schooling and friends. The AF noted that he was amenable to extending that visit if school continued to be online.

[30] On Thursday, September 11, 2025 the Near North School Board advised that in class learning would commence Monday September 15, 2025. The AF made efforts to confirm Mason's return. The RM responded with a text message indicating "due to unforeseen circumstances I am not able to financially support a trip back to Ontario until September 20 th ".

[31] The AF brought an emergency motion seeking an order allowing him to pick up Mason in New Brunswick. That order was granted by Justice Rocheleau on September 12, 2025 and was accompanied by a police assistance clause.

[32] The AF drove to New Brunswick and was unsuccessful in retrieving Mason. The Police in New Brunswick required that the Order be registered in New Brunswick in order to obtain jurisdiction and the RM did not allow Mason to return with the AF.

[33] The AF brought a contempt motion. This motion is scheduled for hearing on September 25, 2025. In the meantime, the OCL filed its VOC Report dated September 22, 2025.

The Issues

[34] The RM's sale of her home in Ontario and the relocation to New Brunswick is a material change in circumstances. Mason has primarily resided with the RM in the Parry Sound area since the parties separated in 2012. The RM sold her home in Parry Sound on March 11, 2025. She and Mason moved in with Adam's parents in Parry Sound until the end of June 2025. The RM and Adam purchased a new home in Woodstock, New Brunswick on May 13, 2025 with a closing date of June 16, 2025. The RM, Adam and their three children who are 10, 6 and 3 years of age have been residing in New Brunswick since July 1, 2025.

[35] It is the RM's intention to relocate Mason to Woodstock, New Brunswick with her and Adam and Mason's half-siblings. The AF opposes the relocation of Mason.

[36] The issue for this Court to determine is whether the relocation is in Mason's best interests and whether to authorize the RM's request to relocate Mason to New Brunswick on a temporary basis.

The Law and Position of the Parties

[37] The Children's Law Reform Act (the "CLRA") was amended in March 2021 to include specific obligations to address the change in residence, or relocation of a child. Section 39.4 (3) of the CLRA directs the Court to take into consideration the best interests set out in s. 24 of the CLRA and the following additional best interest considerations:

Best interests of the child

(3) In determining whether to authorize the relocation of a child, the court shall take into account the best interests of the child in accordance with section 24, as well as,

(a) the reasons for the relocation;

(b) the impact of the relocation on the child;

(c) the amount of time spent with the child by each person who has parenting time or is an applicant for a parenting order with respect to the child, and the level of involvement in the child's life of each of those persons;

(d) whether the person who intends to relocate the child has complied with any applicable notice requirement under section 39.3 and any applicable Act, regulation, order, family arbitration award and agreement;

(e) the existence of an order, family arbitration award or agreement that specifies the geographic area in which the child is to reside;

(f) the reasonableness of the proposal of the person who intends to relocate the child to vary the exercise of decision-making responsibility, parenting time or contact, taking into consideration, among other things, the location of the new residence and the travel expenses; and

(g) whether each person who has decision-making responsibility or parenting time or is an applicant for a parenting order with respect to the child has complied with their obligations under any applicable Act, regulation, order, family arbitration award or agreement, and the likelihood of future compliance. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 15.

[38] Section 24 of the CLRA provides for the following considerations when making decisions related to decision making responsibilities and parenting time orders for children:

Best interests of the child

24 (1) In making a parenting order or contact order with respect to a child, the court shall only take into account the best interests of the child in accordance with this section. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 6.

Primary consideration

(2) In determining the best interests of a child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, and, in doing so, shall give primary consideration to the child's physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 6.

Factors

(3) Factors related to the circumstances of a child include,

(a) the child's needs, given the child's age and stage of development, such as the child's need for stability;

(b) the nature and strength of the child's relationship with each parent, each of the child's siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child's life;

(c) each parent's willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child's relationship with the other parent;

(d) the history of care of the child;

(e) the child's views and preferences, giving due weight to the child's age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;

(f) the child's cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;

(g) any plans for the child's care;

(h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;

(i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and co-operate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;

(j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things,

(i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and

(ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to co-operate on issues affecting the child; and

(k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 6.

[39] The parties have been separated for over 13 years and while they have not been able to work collaboratively and there are many instances of disagreement around parenting time and schedules, there is no evidence of family violence before this Court. The RM refers to historical aggressive and volatile behavior towards her but confirms that it is not the motivation behind the move and is not a significant factor in the Court's determination on this motion. The AF denies these allegations.

[40] The AF raised concerns about Adam and referred to an exchange on May 23, 2025 where Adam is alleged to have threatened him in the presence of Mason, leading to concerns by the AF of Adam's volatility and the potential for physical aggression. The AF was concerned that Adam was under the influence of drugs or alcohol and the matter was referred to the Children's Aid Society ("CAS") and the Ontario Provincial Police ("OPP"). While the AF suggests that criminal charges may be pending, there is no evidence that charges were laid and the CAS closed its file as evidenced by the letter from the CAS dated June 3, 2025 confirming that "allegations that were reported around concerns that Adam's alcohol consumption may affect his ability to care for the children were not verified." Apart from this allegation, there is no evidence of any violent or aggressive behavior by either party or Adam.

[41] Section 39.3(1) of the CLRA includes an obligation on the relocating party to provide the other parent with at least 60 days' notice. Section 39.3(2) sets out the following notice requirements:

Notice requirements

(2) The notice shall be in the form prescribed by the regulations or, if no form is prescribed, shall be in writing and shall set out,

(a) the expected date of the proposed relocation;

(b) the address of the new residence and contact information of the person or child, as the case may be;

(c) a proposal as to how decision-making responsibility, parenting time or contact, as the case may be, could be exercised; and

(d) any other information that may be prescribed by the regulations.

[42] The RM mother did not provide formal Notice of Relocation until May 13, 2025, or later and Counsel for the RM acknowledged that oversight noting that she was self-represented at that time.

[43] Counsel refers the Court to the burden of proof set out in section 39.4(6) of the CLRA which places the burden on the AF in this case. Section 39.4(6) provide as follows:

(6) If the parties to the proceeding substantially comply with an order, family arbitration award or agreement that provides that a child spend the vast majority of time in the care of the party who intends to relocate the child, the party opposing the relocation has the burden of proving that the relocation would not be in the best interests of the child. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s.

[44] Counsel submits that the AF bears the burden in this case and that his objections are based upon unfounded allegations about the RM's partner and suspicions around the reasons for the relocation. The RM's affidavit claims that the AF has taken self-help measures to prevent and frustrate the relocation, including reporting false allegations to the CAS and physically removing Mason from her care to prevent the relocation.

[45] The AF claims that he had genuine concerns for Mason's safety as a result of his encounter with Adam and that he sincerely believed that the RM was leaving for New Brunswick when she and the family headed to Ottawa the weekend of June 23, 2025. The AF denies that he took self-help measures and notes that he brought emergency and urgent motions to address the situation in court on both occasions.

[46] The RM claims that the AF is inconsistent with his child support obligations flowing from the Child Support Order and that the inability to rely of consistent child support contributed to the financial hardship leading to the decision to relocate. The AF acknowledges that he is in arrears but claims that he was contacted by the Family Responsibility Office ("FRO") advising him that he had an overpayment. He was asked if he wanted the money returned to which he advised that he did not, but that it could be applied toward future payments. He stopped making payments only to learn that it was a miscalculation putting him further behind. He claims he has been making efforts to catch up. None of this was included in his affidavit but provided by way of oral submissions. The written materials, acknowledge that he fell behind at some point and that his wages were garnished 50% until he caught up. Arrears in the amount of $2,329 are reflected in the Child Support Order. The AF notes a change in employment such that he is no longer under a garnishment but is working with the FRO to address any arrears.

[47] Counsel for the RM provided a Statement of Law citing Gordon v. Goertz ("Gordon") as the leading authority in relocation cases and noting that in considering whether an interim relocation is in a child's best interests, the court must consider the following principles as set out by Justice Marshman in Plumley v. Plumley ("Plumley") at paragraph 7:

1. A court will be more reluctant to upset the status quo on an interim basis and permit the move when there is a genuine issue for trial.

2. There can be compelling circumstances that might dictate that a judge ought to allow the move. For example, the move may result in a financial benefit to the family unit, which will be lost if the matter awaits a trial, or the best interests of the children might dictate that they commence school at a new location.

3. Although there may be a genuine issue for trial, the move may be permitted on an interim basis if there is a strong possibility that the custodial parent's position will prevail at trial.

[48] The Divisional Court in Diallo v Bah, 2025 ONSC 2106 ("Diallo") denounces the genuine issue for trial test and states that temporary relocation decisions must be based on a child's best interests, considering the relevant factors in s. 24(2) and 39.4(3) of the CLRA. At paragraph 47 of Diallo, the Court makes the following important observation about temporary orders or relocation:

I pause here to note that Plumley's reference to the need to find that there is no genuine issue for trial is a recognition of the fact that relocation decisions are hard to reverse at trial without causing major disruption to the children. For that reason, as the panel granting leave in this case appears to have implicitly recognized, they have an air of finality which makes it appropriate to consider whether they should be decided by way of a process designed to make final decisions, such as a summary judgement motion or a trial of an issue. In this case, as the motion judge noted, there was an expanded process that allowed for the giving of oral evidence and cross-examination on that evidence. However, it was still a process aimed at making an interim, not a final decision.

[49] Counsel also reminds the Court that while the RM has moved to New Brunswick to commence her employment, s. 39.4(4) of the CLRA, prohibits the Court from considering whether the person who intends to relocate the child would relocate without the child or not relocate.

[50] The RM submits that the relocation is in Mason's best interest for the following reasons:

(1) The RM has been the primary caregiver for Mason since birth.

(2) While the AF has enjoyed parenting time, he has never played a role in the fundamental tasks of parenting such as ensuring Mason gets to school on time, does his homework, attends to medical appointments, engaging him in extra-curricular activities, etc.

(3) Mason is bonded with his three siblings and has been part of their lives from birth. A separation from his family unit would have a significant impact on Mason.

(4) The RM maintains that she has always complied with court orders and there is no reason to believe that she would not comply with an order from New Brunswick.

(5) The RM claims that she has presented a parenting time plan for Mason and the AF which will support a continued relationship. She is prepared to absorb the cost of travel for the specific times set out in her application; with additional parenting time to be at the AF's request.

(6) The RM submits that the reasons for the move are reasonable being driven by the high cost of living and inability to find affordable housing in Ontario. The savings realized by the move to New Brunswick means that the RM will be in a better position to financially support Mason and the other children. The RM purchased a home in Woodstock, New Brunswick on May 13, 2025 with a closing date of June 16, 2025. The RM claims that the new home reduces the monthly mortgage expense from $2,400 to $1,100. Not only does the home allow for financial relief, the RM claims that it is as upgrade from the home they had in Seguin – large decks with outdoor space.

(7) The RM was able to obtain employment in New Brunswick as a Nursing Unit Clerk with Horizon Health Network, earning $28 per hour with an expected annual income of $58,000.

(8) The RM has enrolled Mason in Woodstock High School which is a ten minute walk from the home they purchased. The school has some unique courses she claims that are not available at Parry Sound High School. The RM notes that there is a community college close by, along with a recreational center for indoor and outdoor activities, including a pool.

(9) The RM submits that she is prepared to facilitate parenting time between the AF and Mason, by taking responsibility to book and cover the travel expenses between New Brunswick and Ontario and to accommodate additional parenting time in New Brunswick.

(10) The RM notes that the AF's proposal that he become the primary caregiver for Mason would mean a significant change in Mason's life as she has always been the sole decision-maker for Mason. She raises concerns about his ability to assist Mason with school as he has never been engaged in that aspect of parenting. The RM is concerned that Mason will be isolated, away from his siblings and left to his own devices, literally in that she is concerned that Mason has been engaging in too much screen time since he has been in the AF care.

(11) In addition to the change in primary caregiver, the RM submits that the separation from Mason's siblings is significant and will have a negative impact on him and them.

[51] The AF submits that the relocation is not in Mason's best interest for the following reasons:

(1) While the RM has been the primary caregiver for Mason, the AF has always wanted to spend more time with Mason. He has been consistent in the parenting time provided. He has continued to seek more parenting time. He indicates that he recently asked the RM if they could commence a week about schedule and that it was his intention to move forward with a MTC if they did not agree. The AF is concerned that this move is an effort to thwart that request.

(2) The AF denies that he is not capable of undertaking the essential tasks of parenting. He claims that he repeatedly asked to pick up Mason from school on Friday or to drop him off at school on Mondays so that he could be more involved. He claims that he was told that it was not his parenting time and so he could not. He is concerned, given this history, that the RM's claim that she will provide additional time if requested, will not be honored.

(3) The AF claims that he wanted to enroll Mason in extra-curricular activities and that the RM would not allow it because it would lead to disparities between Mason and her other children. Instead, the AF attends all soccer, baseball, basketball and other sports that Mason does play in.

(4) The AF is concerned about the lack of family support in New Brunswick and notes that Mason has a lot of family members in Parry Sound – his two brothers who will live with him and other aunts, uncles and cousins within the community. The AF includes Adam's parents as potential supports noting that they are very reasonable people and that he has been able to communicate with them.

(5) The AF is concerned with the level of disruption in the RM's life. He notes and provide photos of the RM with another partner in April/May 2024 when she and Adam were separated for a period of time. He reiterates his concerns that Adam has been struggling with addictions which resulted in the loss of his business and ability to financially support his family.

(6) The AF notes that this is an important time in Mason's life. He is entering into High School and his friends, and the familiarity of his community are important.

(7) The AF also submits that Mason's relationship with him is an important one; noting the time that they spend together physically in addition to nightly telephone calls and even time spent gaming, virtually. The AF is eager to teach Mason lessons about work ethic, making money and budgeting.

Application to this Case

[52] The burden is on the AF in this case given that prior to the relocation, Mason has spent the majority of his time with the RM and his half-siblings. As noted by Counsel for the RM a decision to prohibit the relocation could result in a significant change in the primary caregiver for Mason. A review of the caselaw suggests that in the majority of cases where the relocating party is the parent with the vast majority of the time, the relocating parent's request to relocate with the child, even on a temporary basis, is granted.

[53] The AF's consistent and increasing involvement in Mason's life is noteworthy. This is not a situation where parenting time is sporadic and unpredictable. The AF has been persistent in his requests and pursuit of time with Mason. They have developed a close relationship. This was clear in the VOC Report. While the burden remains on the AF, these circumstances, in my view, make Mason's wishes and preferences more important.

[54] Mason met with the OCL twice; the first time on August 29, 2025 and the second time on September 5, 2025. While both visits were in Parry Sound, the first occurred after Mason had returned from a visit with his half-siblings and mother in New Brunswick and the second on the eve of his next trip to New Brunswick. His views and preferences remained consistent, and he reported that he was 100% sure that he wanted to stay in Parry Sound.

[55] The challenge with this case, is that much of the evidence is untested and based upon hearsay allegations about the other parent. The Court did not have the benefit of cross-examination, or even response or reply in some cases.

[56] Both parties are of the view that this issue cannot await a final determination by way of the MTC. The RM and her family have already relocated and school for Mason has begun.

[57] The starting point is to note the following findings based on the evidence before this Court:

(1) The RM has been the primary caregiver and decision-maker for Mason since birth. He has resided with her since the separation.

(2) Mason has three half-siblings who reside with the RM and with whom he has a close relationship. The AF acknowledges that since the relocation, Mason has gamed with his older two siblings on a regular basis. The VOC Report confirms that Mason views himself as having a close relationship with his oldest half-sibling who he shares common interests in basketball and gaming. He states he does not spend a lot of time with his younger siblings given the age difference.

(3) Mason has a close relationship with both parents. He has resided with his mother and she describes a warm and loving relationship. The AF and Mason spend a considerable amount of time together. They have nightly calls and often engage by playing virtual video games when Mason it not in his father's care. Again, this evidence is confirmed in the VOC Report. The clinician noted that Mason reported the strength of his relationship with his mother as an 8 or 9 out of 10 with the same rating for his father. He indicated that if he needed advice during parenting time he could go to either and they would listen and offer a hug.

(4) Mason has lived in the Parry Sound area all his life and he has extended family that he is connected with in the Parry Sound area. In summarizing Mason's views and preferences, the clinician notes the following:

"He reiterated that the top reason for him wanting to stay for parenting time during the school year with his father included wanting to be with his friends, having "been here my whole life," and that his extended family also resides in Parry Sound. He indicated his maternal grandparents, along with his stepfather's parents, live in Parry Sound. On his father's side, his great-grandmother, cousins, uncles and aunts live in Parry Sound.

The Reasons for the Relocation

[58] With respect to the reasons for the relocation, Counsel for the RM emphasis the financial hardship and rising cost of living as the main driver behind the relocation and as solid justification for the decision to relocate in New Brunswick. Counsel referred the Court to O'Brien v. Chuluundaater 2021 ONCA 555 ("O'Brien") to support her position that the rising cost of living and financial hardship have been accepted as a reasonable basis upon which a relocation can be approved.

[59] In O'Brien (which was a determination following a trial), there was evidence that the applicant mother was really struggling financially. She was born, raised and educated in Mongolia. She was employed as an economic analyst, a financial sector specialist and a consultant prior to moving to Canada. She was unable to secure similar employment in Canada not withstanding her efforts. Her recent employment included being a door-to-door water tank salesperson, a barista, an interpreter and a data entry clerk. She was unable to independently support herself and the child. She relied on government benefits and child support.

[60] There is no such evidence of financial hardship in this case. The RM has not worked outside of the home since Mason was born. The RM's husband, Adam, had a construction business in Parry Sound and there is some evidence that it fell into mismanagement, and he had to collapse the business. While the RM relies on financial hardship, the AF refers to messages and photo claiming that the RM has money to travel, renovate their home that they had lived in for 10 years and buy sports cars. The RM acknowledged that she did not work but claims that she was ready to return to the workforce. There is no evidence that she made any efforts to locate work in Parry Sound. Parry Sound has a hospital which is a major employer in the region and there is no evidence that she could not have secured a comparable job as a Unit Clerk Nurse in Parry Sound.

[61] The RM's affidavit made very general statements about being unable to find affordable accommodations in Ontario, without any details of the efforts made to look for alternate accommodations, or why after 10 years they had to sell their home. The lack of consistent timely child support payments was offered as one contributing factor. The RM also claims that they could not afford a mortgage in Ontario, notwithstanding the fact that they had a substantial downpayment from the sale of their home. The RM provided limited information claiming only that they had trouble qualifying as a result of only having one self-employed income. There are no details around the efforts made by Adam to secure employment in Ontario. Adam is a carpenter. While his business may not have been successful, that does not mean that there is no employment for a carpenter, unless self-employed.

[62] The RM also relies on Lawrence v. Khan 2022 ONCJ 521 ("Lawrence") where the court took judicial notice of the housing crisis in Ontario as being a relevant factor in determining requests for relocation. It is difficult reconcile an argument that the housing crisis supports relocation, in a case where the RM mother sold the home which the family had been living in for over 10 years and which appears to have had significant equity in it.

[63] The RM claims that she considered rental options, but that those were limited and unaffordable referring to the fact that they needed accommodations for a family of six. No other details of efforts to search out options were provided.

[64] In terms of the benefits of the relocation, the RM appears to have done well. The RM was able to purchase a home that accommodates her family of six. She was able to secure employment in her chosen field, even though she had not worked outside of the home for several years. The community as described by the RM seems to have all of the necessary amenities, a school within walking distance; a community center within a similar radius and opportunities for extra-curricular activities.

[65] The RM claims that she has family in New Brunswick; a mother, grandfather, two aunts, four cousins and two second cousins all within 1 to 1.5 hours of Woodstock. There are no details regarding the RM, or Mason's, contact or familiarity with these family members. The AF claims that the RM has never been close to her father or his partner and that her mother remains in Ontario. The AF claims that the RM made allegations of sexual assault by her stepfather against her and claimed that her mother tried to cover it up. He claims that the RM said that they were dangerous people and that he was not to leave Mason in their care. While the AF acknowledges that the RM's position appears to have changed, he does not believe that they have a close relationship or that Mason has spent much time with them. None of the RM's family members in New Brunswick are mentioned in the VOC Report as being important people in Mason's life. In contrast, the clinician states that "[Mason] mentioned that he is close with his uncles and, in the past, always looked forward to spending time with them during his father's parenting time. On the weekends, they would often play basketball and video games together."

[66] Adam's parents reside in Parry Sound and have been closely connected to Mason. The RM and Adam resided with them for several months following the sale of their home in Seguin in March 2025. As noted above, the AF includes Adam's parents as a support for Mason. The VOC Reports notes that Mason acknowledges his close relationship with his maternal grandparents and stepfather's parents who reside in Parry Sound.

[67] The AF claims that there are credible rumors that the RM's partner lost his business due to an addiction to alcohol and he fears that the family is simply fleeing financial obligations without a solid plan. There is no evidence of Adam's employment in New Brunswick and it is unclear whether he is working.

[68] While there are many positive aspects of the relocation, there are concerns. While the family waited until the end of the school year to move, there is a hint of urgency or lack of planning to the move. The parties resided together in Parry Sound for over 10 years and raised their children in the same home. No notice was provided to the AF, until the relocation was well under way. This was not a move to a better job, but rather a move to create a better life. The results of that decision come with some uncertainty.

[69] The RM and Adam have experienced challenges in their relationship. The AF attaches photos from Ryan Johnston's facebook account depicting the RM and him in a relationship in May 2024 when the RM and Adam were separated. Mason referred to the break-up between the RM and Adam in his report to the OCL. He acknowledges that he calls Adam 'dad' but rates the strength of their relationship at a 6 out of 10, noting that it used to be "better before he hurt his mom" and that "he left their family for a few months a few years ago." This incident resulted in some feelings of distrust towards Adam even though he apologized.

The Impact on Mason

[70] This is a significant relocation. As noted above, the AF has been consistent and persistent in his pursuit of parenting time with Mason. Alternate weekends cannot be accommodated from this distance. The clinician notes that Mason became emotional and teared up several times when he spoke about the time he would miss with either parent. He reported his understanding of his mother's plan to fly him home once per month and was clear that this was "not enough time" with his father.

[71] One of the most significant impacts for Mason is the loss of his friends. He ranked his relationship with his friends as 10 out of 10. While he acknowledged that he initially thought the idea of moving to New Brunswick seemed fun and exciting he said it would be hard to leave his friends and to make new friends.

[72] Notably, Mason indicated that he struggled to understand why his mother moved.

The amount of time spent with the child by each person who has parenting time

[73] Mason's time with his parents has been siloed and it appears that the RM's claim that the AF has not played a significant role in school and planning of extra-curricular activities is accurate. The AF alleges that while he asked to pick Mason up at school on the Fridays at the commencement of his parenting time, he was told it was not his time and as a result, he has not been actively involved with the school. Similarly, he claims that the RM discouraged him from enrolling Mason in extracurricular activities given that it would be unfair to her other children. Regardless of the reasons, Mason has spent the majority of his school week, since the separation, with his mother and that his parenting time with his father occurred on weekends and holidays.

[74] The apportionment of time does not appear, however, to have impacted Mason's perception of his father's ability to assist him. In the VOC Report, Mason reports that his father helps him with homework on the weekends. He goes onto note other activities such as playing basketball, video games and watching "The Simpson". In the winter they make jumps in the backyard and snowmobile.

[75] Mason equally enjoys time with his mother and reported that he just likes spending time with her – watching movies together, playing games and she sometimes joins him and his siblings outside.

Compliance with Court Orders

[76] The areas of significant concerns for this Court relate to the lack of notice provided by the RM and her ability to respect court orders. Although she was initially self-represented and may not have understood the formal notice obligations, her approach to this move appears to be one of entitlement. The AF claims that Mason was told he has no choice, and the RM did not consult or discuss the proposal with the AF at all. The AF claims he only found out about the move from Mason and there is no evidence of any attempts to discuss the issues with the AF either prior to or after the AF raised concerns about the move.

[77] Of even greater concern is the RM's actions in the face of parenting time orders. While the RM claimed through her Counsel and materials in this motion that she is compliant, her actions speak otherwise. As she planned to move to New Brunswick, she had no regard for the parenting time orders in place and initially proposed that the AF's parenting time would be conditional upon his agreement to pay half of the transportation costs. The RM has since put forward a modified parenting plan which provides for transportation costs but reduces the amount of parenting time to a one-week block at Christmas; four weeks in the summer and alternating March Break, Easter and Thanksgiving. This is much less than the two days a month that Mason identified as 'not enough'.

[78] The RM claims that she would not have left with Mason on June 23, 2025 with the rest of the family because there was an order in place prohibiting her from relocating at that point. The AF was significantly concerned and claims that he only retrieved Mason because Mason believed his mom was taking him away.

[79] Furthermore, the RM's failure to return Mason on September 14, 2025 in accordance with this Court's order of September 2, 2025 and the Order of Justice Rocheleau dated September 12, 2025 is very concerning.

[80] Each parent's willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child's relationship with the other parent is a significant best interests' consideration under s. 24(3)(c) of the CLRA. The RM's action in respect of these orders suggest that she places more weight on her relationship with Mason than that of the AF. The AF's decision to send Mason to New Brunswick on September 5, 2025, given that the High School could only offer virtual learning at the time was very child focused and shows respect for this important best interest consideration.

[81] This is also confirmed in the VOC Report in that Mason believes that "his father is flexible and would try to make a plan that would work so that Mason could spend all of his holiday time with his mother" and that he is certain his father would allow him to live with his mother for parenting time during the school year." He reported the same of his mother. Given the importance he placed in the trust of his parents to accommodate time with the other, the RM's actions are very concerning.

[82] The Court remains hopeful and must acknowledge the fact that Mason reported to the clinician that "[he] loves them both". He is impacted by negative comments being made about the other parent and both parents should be careful to protect him from any negative feelings they have for each other.

Decision

[83] This is a temporary order that has been sought and given the very strong views and preferences of Mason, the lack of strong reasons for the relocation and the concerns that the RM would not respect and follow orders, the Court is not prepared to grant the request to relocate with Mason at this time.

[84] It is important to remember that this is not a final order and that upon a full review and upon a better understanding of the benefits and ability to work together a different decision may be made. However, at this point the Court is satisfied that a relocation is not in Mason's best interests.

[85] The Current Order outlining parenting time remains in effect, and any changes will depend upon whether the RM decides to relocate to New Brunswick without Mason. In the meantime, the temporary order of this court dated May 28, 2025 prohibiting the RM from removing Mason from the Province of Ontario without the AF's consent, or an order of the Court, remains.

Released: September 24, 2025

Signed: Justice B.C. Oldham