The mother unilaterally relocated with the child from Markham to Orillia to pursue employment, enrolling the child in a new school without notifying the father.
The father brought an urgent motion to have the child returned to Markham and for primary residence, while the mother cross-moved to permit the relocation.
Applying the Gordon v. Goertz and Plumley factors for interim mobility, the court found the mother failed to demonstrate that disrupting the status quo before trial was in the child's best interests.
The court ordered the child to resume school in Markham, with primary care remaining with the mother only if she returned to Markham; otherwise, primary care would transfer to the father.
