COURT FILE NO.: FC-23-134 DATE: 2025/03/07 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Dominique Brohart Applicant – and – Andrew Brohart Respondent Lauren Blanchet, Counsel for the Applicant Unrepresented Respondent HEARD: January 22, 23, 24 and 31, 2025 REASONS FOR DECISION Engelking J. Overview [ 1 ] These reasons for decision were delivered to the parties orally on January 31, 2025. [ 2 ] This trial concerns the significant, and only remaining issue, of whether the Applicant mother, Dominique, will be permitted to permanently relocate with the children of the marriage to Powassan, Ontario, or whether she will be required to return to Renfrew, Ontario, where the Respondent father, Andrew, lives. [ 3 ] Throughout these reasons, I will be referring to the parties by their given names, not out of disrespect, but out of ease of reference. [ 4 ] Dominique was born and raised in Powassan, Ontario; Andrew was born and raised in Renfrew, Ontario. However, they met in Yellowknife, NWT, in or around 2013, where both were working at the time. [ 5 ] The parties were married on May 12, 2018, and their agreed upon date of separation is April 1, 2022. At the time of the marriage, Dominique had just commenced working as an addiction and DV counsellor at the Friendship Centre in Yellowknife. In July of 2019, Andrew commenced working as a sales agent with Vista Radio Inc. [ 6 ] Three children were born of the marriage, Josie Jeanette Marie Brohart, born February 22, 2019, Fletcher Mark Joseph Brohart, born March 31, 2020, and Libby Donna Marie Brohart, born March 6, 2022. [ 7 ] The children were born in relatively quick succession, and after Dominique took maternity leave following the birth of their first child, Josie, she did not return to work outside of the home. Dominique did not re-enter the work force until October of 2023, after she was permitted to relocate to Powassan on a temporary basis with the children by order of Justice Hooper delivered on July 17, 2023. [ 8 ] Josie and Fletcher were born in Yellowknife. In October of 2021, however, the family decided to relocate to Renfrew County, Ontario. Dominique was pregnant with their third child at that time. [ 9 ] The family did not initially have a place to live so their plan was to temporarily live with Andrew’s parents in Arnprior, Ontario. They stayed with Andrew’s parents for approximately nine months, although for the last month before securing an apartment, they stayed in the home of Andrew’s cousin, Samantha Lennie, in Brockville, Ontario. The parties’ third child, Libby, was born in Almonte, Ontario. [ 10 ] Dominique and Andrew were eventually able to secure an apartment in Renfrew on Lochiel Street, in or about June of 2022, but they only lived there for approximately a month and a half before moving to a rented single-family home at 159 Bank Street, Renfrew, in September of 2022. Both rental units were secured in leases which were in the sole name of Andrew. [ 11 ] Although Andrew was able to continue working, mostly virtually, for Vista Radio in Ontario, his job required him to travel to Yellowknife on a regular basis, initially approximately once per month for one or two weeks at a time. During his absences from Renfrew County, Dominique would take the children and stay with her parents in Powassan, although she did so less frequently after Libby was born as she had well baby appointments to attend in Renfrew. [ 12 ] The parties lived together in the Bank Street home from September of 2022 until March 20, 2023, on which date Dominique left the home with the children and moved into a women’s shelter, the Bernadette McCann House in Pembroke, where she stayed until she was permitted to relocate to Powassan on a temporary basis, which she did on July 20, 2023. [ 13 ] Thus, although the parties moved to Ontario from Yellowknife in October of 2021 with the intention of living in Renfrew, between October of 2021 and July of 2023, they stayed in: • Arnprior in the home of Andrew’s parents • The home of Samantha Lennie for approximately one month • A rented apartment on Lochiel Street in Renfrew for approximately a month and a half, and • A rented single-family home on Bank Street in Renfrew for approximately six months. [ 14 ] Additionally, over that period, Dominique and the children periodically stayed in the home of her parents, initially monthly and later quarterly, and Dominique and the children lived in the Bernadette McCann House for approximately four months to July of 2023. [ 15 ] The parties agree that during the marriage, both parents were responsible for the care and well-being of the children. Although Andrew was employed fulltime, he was as involved a parent as he could possibly be. While the parties lived in Yellowknife, Andrew’s fulltime hours were 9 to 5. He was involved with morning routines and care of the children (at that time Josie and then Josie and Fletcher) after work, and particularly for their bedtime routines. After the move to Renfrew County, because Andrew was working remotely for a company operating out of Yellowknife, his hours changed to 11 to 7 due to the time change with the NWT. Nevertheless, Andrew remained very involved with the children in the mornings prior to 11 am (often times later, according to him), as well as in the evening for meals, play and bedtime. Dominique does not dispute the degree to which Andrew was involved with the children’s care. Nor does Andrew dispute that Dominique was a stay-at-home mother who cared for the children fulltime while he worked, including while he worked during his parenting time after separation. By all accounts, the status quo was one of shared parenting while the family was intact, albeit with Dominique having the primary role during Andrew’s work. Additionally, by all accounts both Dominique and Andrew are excellent parents, diligently meeting the needs of their children while in their respective care, though Andrew continues to have some concerns about Dominique meeting the emotional needs of the children, Josie in particular, in relation to the impact of the breakdown of the relationship on them, and about Dominique’s negative messaging about him to or in the presence of the children. [ 16 ] According to both Dominique and Andrew, the marriage was on shaky ground for a long time. Although they have identified April 1, 2022, at their date of separation, Dominique and Andrew continued to live separate and apart in the family home until Dominique moved with the children to the shelter in Pembroke on March 20, 2023. [ 17 ] Sometime in the spring of 2022, the parties signed a “kitchen table” separation agreement, without the benefit of legal advice, which purported to establish a shared parenting regime. [ 18 ] Dominique’s evidence, however, was that she did not know that the marriage was truly over for several months after separation. She continued to believe that they were working on reconciliation for several months, indeed well into the fall of 2022, which efforts included attempting marriage counselling. [ 19 ] Andrew’s evidence was that Dominique appeared to understand that the relationship was irreparably finished in June of 2022, at which time she had a brief psychological breakdown which included the involvement of the OPP and a brief hospitalization. Andrew’s position in relation to the attempted couples’ counselling is that he was looking to be assisted in figuring out how to better communicate for the purposes of co-parenting the children, not in reconciling the marriage, and that he was clear with Dominique about this. [ 20 ] At some point, the parties agreed to try a 2/2/3 nesting arrangement wherein the parent who had parenting time with the children would reside with them in the Bank Street home and the other parent would stay in a trailer purchased by Dominque and situated on the property of Andrew’s cousin, Christine. This nesting arrangement commenced in late February of 2023. The situation was difficult, however, as the trailer was heated by wood and/or propane and was not optimal for winter accommodation. [ 21 ] The parties met on March 14, 2023. On that date, Andrew proposed that Dominique remain in the Bank Street home with the children, which he would continue to pay for, and that he would temporarily stay with his parents. Andrew also suggested the parties attend mediation to see if they could negotiate a proper separation agreement, to which Dominique agreed. However, the nesting arrangement continued. Dominique continued to provided care to the children during Andrew’s work hours in his parenting time. The children were in the care of Andrew in the Bank Street home for three days immediately before Dominique vacated the home with the children. [ 22 ] Notwithstanding Andrew’s proposal six days earlier that she stay in the family home with the children, on March 20, 2023, Dominique moved with the children to the Bernadette McCann House in Pembroke, which is a women’s shelter. [ 23 ] On April 19, 2023, Andrew again proposed that Dominique have exclusive use of the Bank Street home with the children, which he would continue to pay for in lieu of child support. Andrew was very concerned that his children were living in a women’s shelter rather than in the familiar environment of their own home, which contained their equally familiar belongings. Dominique did not agree to this proposal. [ 24 ] On May 5, 2023, the parties attended mediation without counsel, but no resolution was reached. [ 25 ] After Dominique vacated the family home with the children on March 20, 2023, Andrew’s parenting time was briefly interrupted (to March 30) and then recommenced. Andrew wanted to reinstate the 2/2/3 schedule, however, Dominique ultimately proposed that Andrew have parenting time every weekend from Friday at 5:00 p.m. to Monday morning at 10:00 a.m., which appears to be what was in place pending the urgent motion in July. Andrew testified that he wanted to keep the children in his care once his parenting time restarted, as he saw no reason that they should not reside in their own home, however he returned them to Dominique as he didn’t want any such action to be used against him by her. He still steadfastly maintains, however, that it was not in his children’s best interests to be housed in a shelter when they had a perfectly good home with which they were familiar available to them. [ 26 ] Dominique indicated that her reasons for going to the shelter in the first place were that she feared that Andrew would take the children from her if she unilaterally took them to Powassan and that, if the relationship was truly over, she wanted to affect a true physical separation from him. Her reasons for not returning to the home with the children if Andrew vacated were that she experienced anxiety there and that as her name was not on the lease, which would be expiring in September, she would have no control over remaining there. Dominique indicated that her only source of income from December of 2022, when she opened her own bank account, was the Child Tax Benefit payment of $2,126.50 per month (though she also received a retroactive payment from the CRA on December 13, 2024, of $8,506.07 from April 1, 2022, to that date). Dominique feared that she would be unable to afford either the rent on the Bank Street home or any other home on her own. [ 27 ] Dominique commenced her Application on May 26, 2023. In it, Dominque stated she was looking to relocate to North Bay, Ontario. On June 20, 2023, Dominque served Andrew with a Notice of Relocation to North Bay, to which Andrew was opposed. [ 28 ] Dominique indicated that the Bernadette McCann House was a transition house that permitted only a limited stay. She was given a one-month warning that she would have to leave after four months. Dominique, therefore, sought to have an urgent motion regarding her request to temporarily relocate to her parents’ home in Powassan, which urgency was granted by Justice Fraser on July 6, 2023. Justice Hooper then heard the motion on July 14, 2023, and on July 17, 2023, she permitted Dominique to temporarily relocate to Powassan with the children. Justice Hooper also granted parenting time to Andrew every second weekend and ordered that he pay retroactive child support from March 20, 2023, of $6,765 and ongoing child support of $1,353 per month on Andrew’s annual income of $68,000. [ 29 ] Dominique moved with the children to her parents’ home at 74 Oakwood Road in Powassan, Ontario on July 20, 2023, which is an approximate three-hour drive from Renfrew. For the remainder of the summer, the children spent alternating weeks with their parents. [ 30 ] In September of 2023, Josie started school at St. Gregory Catholic Elementary School in Powassan. During the 2023/24 school year, Andrew exercised parenting time every second weekend from Friday after school to Sunday evening, extended to Thursday after school or Monday evening if there was a PD Day or holiday. The parents also shared the Christmas holiday. Commencing on March 1, 2024, Andrew parenting time changed to one where the children spent two weekend in a row with him followed by one weekend with Dominique. This schedule has continued to date. The children additionally spent March Break of 2024 with Andrew. [ 31 ] In the summer of 2024, Andrew wanted to revert to the week about schedule, but Dominique did not agree. Instead, Andrew had the children July 5 to 15, July 26 to August 5 and August 15 to 25, 2024. [ 32 ] In September of 2024, Fletcher also commenced school at St. Gregory Catholic Elementary School. Andrew recommenced his two weekend in a row parenting time, and the parties again shared time over the Christmas holiday, though Dominique’s evidence is that the previously agreed upon schedule was changed by Andrew, which caused some difficulties. [ 33 ] Originally, the parties were exchanging the children in Deep River, which is the approximate halfway point between Renfrew and Powassan. However, that changed and has remained that the parent receiving the children now picks them up from school/daycare or the other at the commencement of his or her parenting time. [ 34 ] Andrew has attended the children’s first days of school, as well as other important school events. He is able to volunteer for school outings or events as well. [ 35 ] Josie has required medical attention for an eye condition, including surgery, as well as dental surgery. Both parents have attended appointments for her, as well as for her eye surgery at CHEO and her dental surgery in North Bay. [ 36 ] Dominique’s evidence is that she is supported by her parents in every way possible in Powassan. They have altered their home to accommodate her and the children, fixing rooms for them as well as turning the basement into a play area. Although she does pay for groceries for her and the children, Dominique is not required to pay any rent to them, which permits her to save money and has allowed her to get back on her feet. Dominique’s parents also provide care for the children when required; they are listed as emergency contacts at the children’s school and Libby’s daycare and are authorized to pick them up, if necessary. Dominique’s father, Len Lanthier, testified and confirmed that he and his wife are willing and able to provide support to Dominique and the children as long as they are needed. [ 37 ] In October of 2024, Dominique was able to obtain employment as an Early Childhood Educator at the YMCA in North Bay, which is approximately 20 minutes from Powassan. She obtained this job because it would assist in fast-tracking Fletcher and Libby into daycare. The children started at the Woodland location of the YMCA because there were spots available for two kids. They were then able to switch to the location at which Dominique was working. Once Fletcher also started school, Dominique was able to place Libby to the Fairlawn Childcare Centre, which is at the same location as Josie and Fletcher’s school. Dominique works parttime hours which are consistent with the children’s schedules. Her employer, moreover, is flexible if, for example, she needs to leave early to attend to a sick child. [ 38 ] Dominque gets up with the children and prepares breakfast for them, after which Josie and Fletcher catch the bus to school. Dominique drives Libby to daycare on her way to work and picks her up around 2:30. Josie and Fletcher bus home from school and then have playtime, dinner and bedtime. Dominique describes their routine as consistent and states that the children have settled into it nicely. The older two love going to school and have made friends there. Additionally, Dominique has many relatives and friends in and around Powassan and North Bay, including her grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins and her brothers, both of whom live in North Bay. Dominique has a sister who lives in Chapleau and comes down to visit with the family regularly. The children have cousins close in age whom they get to see frequently. [ 39 ] This is contrasted with Dominique’s experience in Renfrew, where the only relative she had relatively close by was her sister and her family in Petawawa. Her sister, however, has four children and a busy household, and could not offer much in the way of support to Dominique while living in Renfrew. Dominique portrayed her experience with Andrew’s family in Renfrew County as not very supportive. She expressed that no one in Andrew’s family reached out to provide her assistance or support, particularly after they became aware of the impending or actual breakdown of the relationship. [ 40 ] Andrew, on the other hand, is immensely supported by his family in Renfrew County and beyond. Andrew belongs to a close-knit family which include his parents, brother, aunts and uncles, and cousins. Andrew’s parents have provided him with emotional and financial support and are also able to assist with the children in emergency situations. Andrew’s mother, Donna Brohart, testified and her evidence confirmed her and her husband’s willingness to continue to support Andrew, as well as Dominique, if willing, into the future. The paternal grandparents are close with the children and try to see them each time they are in Andrew’s care. Andrew has also re-partnered, and has the support of his new partner, Melissa, who has three children of her own with whom the children have become very close. [ 41 ] Andrew’s position is that the children should be returned to Renfrew, either with Dominique accompanying them, in which case they could resume a shared parenting regime, or without Dominique, in which case their primary residence should be with him with Dominique’s parenting essentially mirroring what he now exercises. [ 42 ] Dominique’s position is that she should be permitted to permanently relocate to Powassan and the parenting schedule should remain essentially the same as it is now. Although Dominique’s original request included the possibility of relocating to North Bay, her application was later amended to include a request to relocate to the North Bay/Powassan area and her testimony was that it is her plan to remain in Powassan with her parents for some time, as she simply feels she is not yet in a position to afford to live on her own. Dominique indicated that she would hope to one day buy a home in Powassan, though she notes that her opportunities for employment are situated in North Bay. [ 43 ] This a case where the mobility issue is one that is raised at first instance. As is noted by Justice Karakatsanis for the majority at paragraph 112 of Barendregt v. Grebliunas , 2022 SCC 22 : “Without a pre-existing judicial determination, a parent’s desire to relocate is simply part of the factual matrix in the assessment of what parenting arrangement is in the best interest of the child.” [ 44 ] Section 16(1) of the Divorce Act provides that the court is to take into consideration only the best interests of the children of the marriage when making a parenting order. Section 16(2) provides that primary consideration is to be given to “the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.” Section 16(3) sets out the factors listed as (a) through (k) which the court is to consider in making a determination in the child’s best interests. [ 45 ] Additionally, in specific relation to questions of relocation, Section 16.92(1) provides as follows: 16.92 (1) In deciding whether to authorize a relocation of a child of the marriage, the court shall, in order to determine what is in the best interests of the child, take into consideration, in addition to the factors referred to in section 16, (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 a pending application for a parenting order 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 complied with any applicable notice requirement under section 16.9 , provincial family law legislation, an order, arbitral award, or agreement; (e) the existence of an order, arbitral 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 parenting time, decision-making responsibility, or contact, taking into consideration, among other things, the location of the new place of residence and the travel expenses; and (g) whether each person who has parenting time or decision-making responsibility or a pending application for a parenting order has complied with their obligations under family law legislation, an order, arbitral award, or agreement, and the likelihood of future compliance. [ 46 ] Section 16.93 delineates the burden of proof which applies in any given situation. In this situation, prior to and at the time of separation, the children, spent “substantially equal time in the care of each party”. Dominique, as the person seeking to relocate with the children, therefore, bears the burden of proving that the relocation would be in their best interests. [ 47 ] I will go through each Section 16.92 factor in turn. (a) Dominique’s reason for the relocation was to benefit from supports which she required and to which she did not have access in Renfrew. Dominique’s only source of income at the time of her relocation was the CTB of $2,126.50 per month. She did not feel that she could afford to live on her own in Renfrew. While Andrew was offering that Dominique could live in the Bank Street home, for which he would continue to pay in lieu of child support (as in his words he could not afford to pay both), Dominique felt that she would be neither independent nor secure in this proposed arrangement. Dominique continues to feel this way, as her living arrangement with her parents permits her to work parttime and still manage the care of the children. While she is dependent on her parents in Powassan, and will remain so for some time, Dominique is of the view that this is much more psychologically, emotionally, and financially supportive and secure. Indeed, she feels anxious about the prospect of being in a situation in which she would be forced to continue to be reliant on Andrew or Andrew’s family. While Andrew was insistent in his submissions that Dominique had access to support in Renfrew, this is simply not her reality. Dominique had no supports of her own in Renfrew during the marriage and at the time of its breakdown, and this continues to be so. While Dominique attempted to characterize her relationship with Andrew as one which had features of coercive and controlling behaviours on the part of Andrew, I do not find this to be the case. Rather, their relationship was one in which Dominque was entirely dependent on Andrew. When the relationship unravelled, so too did her security, and her ability to depend on him or his supports. Andrew appears not to accept this reality, and remains insistent that his supports are her supports, including himself. However, there are consequences to the breakdown of a relationship, and no matter how much you may want to be friends, the destruction of inter-dependency is first among those consequences. (b) The impact of the relocation on the children has not been and would continue, in my view, to not be negative, though it has certainly been so for Andrew. This is distinct from the impact of the breakdown of the relationship, which has certainly affected the children, as it does all children. Children typically want their parents to be together, and they are almost always negatively affected by the demise of their parents’ relationship. That is no different in this case, particularly as it relates to Josie, who is sensitive and was the oldest of the three. However, the children were very used to regularly staying in the home of their maternal grandparents with their mother. They were doing so monthly for a week or two at a time upon their return to Ontario from the NWT, and later continued to do so at least quarterly when Andrew went to Yellowknife for work. They did not relocate to an unfamiliar environment, nor were they exposed to unfamiliar people. Additionally, and notwithstanding Andrew’s attempts to suggest otherwise, the children were not particularly established in or attached to Renfrew. They had lived or stayed in at least six different places between their return to Ontario in October of 2021 and July of 2023. None of them attended daycare and Josie had not yet started school. They were additionally too young to be involved in extra curricular activities which might tie them to Renfrew. Indeed, Josie, Fletcher and Libby spent all their time with their parents, particularly Dominique. Having less time with Andrew has undoubtedly been felt by them, but they remained in the care of Dominique, in whose care they have always been. Additionally, Andrew has still been able to, and will continue to be able to, participate in important milestones for them, such as Josie and Fletcher’s first days of school and their concerts and events at school and elsewhere, such as events relating to Josie’s dance or her and Fletcher’s gymnastics. Both parents continue to be involved in medical and dental appointments for the children. It is a testament to Andrew that he has prioritized being present for those things which are important for and about the children. His actions have no doubt assisted in minimizing any negative impact to which the children might have been exposed by the move and he is to be commended for it. However, the children have settled well into their lives in Powassan and have not been negatively impacted by the relocation to date. (c) There is no doubt that Andrew and Dominique had essentially shared parenting time during the relationship, and after separation while they lived separate and apart in the same home. While Dominique was a stay-at-home mother and provided primary care to the children during the day, including on those days when Andrew worked during his parenting time, Andrew was very involved with their care, both before and after work, and sometimes during work hours. Dominique additionally, provided exclusive care to the children during those periods when Andrew travelled to Yellowknife for work, both during the relationship and after separation. (d) Dominique complied with the applicable notice requirement under section 16.9 of the Divorce Act . (e) Not Applicable. (f) Under the circumstances, the variation of Andrew’s parenting time which has occurred to date, and which Dominique proposes to continue to occur is for the most part reasonable. The children have continued to spend significant time with Andrew, albeit not the amount of time that he, or perhaps even they, would like. Andrew enjoys four weekends out of five with the children during the school year and has shared holidays and extended parenting time during the summer with them. In relocation cases generally, where the relocation is found to be justified, the objective is to ensure that the “left-behind parent” is ensured a meaningful relationship with the children. There is no doubt that Andrew continues to have a meaningful relationship with his children. Much of this is, as I have stated, due to his dedication. However, except for the brief period between March 20 and 30, 2023, which was during the turmoil of the actual physical separation, Dominique has also ensured that Andrew’s relationship and involvement with the children has continued. In relation to transportation, the parties have shared the burden, and it is proposed by Dominique that they continue to do so in the future. It may be that an order can be structured to ensure that Andrew has more time with the children when they are most available, namely during the summer months, to make up for some of the time that is lost due to Dominique’s decision to live in Powassan with the children rather than in Renfrew. (g) This factor is largely non-applicable, as both parents have complied with their obligations as parents. However, Dominique has made some unilateral decisions in relation to the children, specifically in relation to enrolling Libby in not one but three daycares, without first consulting with and obtaining Andrew’s consent. Although Andrew raised it, I do not include in this observation the registration of Fletcher in St. Gregory’s School in Powassan, as this was specifically permitted by Justice Hooper’s order delivered on July 17, 2023, in relation to Josie, and it only stands to reason that Fletcher would follow suit. Andrew, on the other hand, has not engaged the children in any services without obtaining Dominique’s consent, even though he believes some are required, such as counselling or programming for Josie. The parties have since, on November 20, 2024, entered into a Final Order of shared decision-making authority, and it is expected that neither will engage in unilateral decision-making of any type in the future. [ 48 ] In relation to the Section 16(3) best interests factors, I find that both of these parents are able and willing to meet the needs of the children; both promote the relationship of the children with the other parent, though Andrew more overtly does so; the children’s relationships with their parents, grandparents and each other, as well as with other relatives on both sides of the family are strong and loving, as are their relationships with Melissa and her children; and both are willing to communicate and cooperate in the best interests of the children. I do not find any indicia of family violence in this case, though, as I have indicated above, I do find that Andrew struggles with understanding that the dynamic that he would like to have with Dominique for the sake of the children is not one in which she can engage. [ 49 ] Andrew submits that Dominique is reluctant to co-parent, that she has negatively messaged about him to or in the presence of the children, and that she has not been willing to promote the paternal grandparent’s relationship with the children. [ 50 ] On the first note, while Dominique used the term “parallel parenting” as opposed to coparenting, that in which she has engaged to date is co-parenting, not perhaps to the degree or in the manner that Andrew would find optimal. However, parallel parenting, particularly in law, is a different animal than what both parties have described in this case. I took Dominique’s reference to parallel parenting to mean more like “when the kids are with you, you parent and I will not interfere, and when the kids are with me, I’ll parent and you will not interfere, and only when we need to do something which requires us both, we will.” In actual fact, the parties’ level of co-parenting is quite exemplary, particularly in comparison to many other cases I see in this court. You are both to be commended. [ 51 ] Dominique indicated that her and Andrew’s communication has improved immensely since they began to use a parenting communication app, through which they can have discussion amongst equals, something she never felt previously. She admits, moreover that the children were exposed to some conflict between her and Andrew while they lived separate and apart in the same household, including during her episode in June of 2022, but that this is no longer the case. Dominique testified that while she has sometimes vented about Andrew on social media, she has not named him nor exposed the children to anything she has posted. It would, of course, be preferable that she refrain from such behaviour, which, even if not intended for Andrew eyes, is hurtful to him and to his family members, who are, after all, the family members of her children. [ 52 ] Dominique submits, moreover, that the PGP’s relationship with the children is Andrew’s responsibility, not hers. With this I agree. Indeed, in his testimony and submissions, Andrew referenced the PGP’s “parenting time”. Pursuant to the Divorce Act , they are not persons who would be entitled to parenting time, though they may have a right of contact. However, the PGP’s are not parties to this proceeding and have not brought their own application for a contact order. Generally speaking, grandparents have access, or contact, with their grandchildren through their child who is the parent of those children. It would be nice if all parties reached a state where visits might be otherwise easily facilitated, but there should be no expectation that it should be so. [ 53 ] There is no doubt in my mind, nor is it controversial between the parties, that a shared parenting regime would be in the best interests of the children if they resided within a reasonable commute of each other. Andrew’s answer for this is for Dominique to return to Renfrew with them. However, Dominique has no support, no job and no housing in Renfrew; nor does she yet have sufficient funds to secure same in a permanent and stable way. Her opportunities there, as researched by Andrew, moreover, are hypothetical at this point. I find that Dominique’s ability - psychologically, physically, and financially - to return to Renfrew with the children is not feasible. An order returning the children to Renfrew would either recreate a dependency which was not functional to begin with or separate the children from Dominique. The children have always been with Dominique, notwithstanding the degree of involvement of and the care they have received from Andrew. In Barendregt , the SCC found at paragraph 123 that the history of caregiving is relevant, but that “the judge must consider the best interests of the particular child in the particular circumstances of the case. Other considerations may demonstrate that relocation is in the child’s best interests, even if the parties have historically co-parented.” [ 54 ] Additionally, the court found at paragraph 169: a. The mother’s need for emotional support was a relevant consideration in the best interests analysis. The mother followed the father to Kelowna, but her family remained in Telka. A move that can improve a parent’s emotional and psychological state can enrich a parent’s ability to cultivate a healthy, supportive, and positive environment for their child. Courts have frequently recognized that a child’s best interests are furthered by a well-functioning and happy parent. [ 55 ] After noting other tangible benefits to the mother in that case, such as housing support, childcare, employment and education opportunities and support of family and community, the court went on to state at paragraph 171: “These considerations all have direct or indirect bearing on the best-interests-of-the-child assessment. Relocation that provides a parent with more education, employment opportunities, and economic stability can contribute to a child’s well-being.” [ 56 ] I find that Dominique has met her burden of demonstrating that an order permitting her to permanently relocate to Powassan, Ontario is in the best interests of the children. [ 57 ] However, Dominic testified that she hopes to one day move out of her parents’ home into one of her own. Her long-term plan is to move into a home of her own in Powassan and for the children to continue in school there, notwithstanding that her best opportunities for work are in North Bay. There will, thus, be an order that Dominic will not be permitted to relocate the children from Powassan without the express written consent of Andrew or a further order of the court. [ 58 ] With respect to Andrew’s parenting time, the status quo will remain in place during the school year, however, during the summer months, the children ought to spend more time with Andrew in Renfrew than they do in Powassan. I note that Dominique has suggested in her draft order alternating two-week parenting blocks, and Andrew has suggested week about parenting, which I assume is to ensure that the children do not experience lengthy periods without seeing him. I intend to order that Andrew have parenting time with the children in the summer in a similar fashion in which he has weekend time during the school year, that is for weeks at a time on a 2-1-2 schedule, which will commence the first day after school finishes and end on the last day before school begins. [ 59 ] I note that the other items included in the draft order, are reflected in the temporary portion of Justice Minnema’s order of November 20, 2024, and were dependent on the outcome of the relocation decision. Those items should be included in the final order. [ 60 ] There will be an order as per the draft order filed by Dominique, except that there will need to be a provision included which provides that Dominique will not be permitted to relocate the children from Powassan, Ontario without the express written consent of Andrew or further order of the court, and the summer holiday parenting time at paragraph 3 (c) shall be varied to Andrew having parenting time on a two week on/one week off schedule commencing the first day after school finishes in June and ending the last day before school starts in September. I ask that Ms. Blanchet make the necessary changes and forward a draft order approved as to form and content to me for my review and signature. [ 61 ] I end by stating that Josie, Fletcher and Libby are very fortunate children. They have very dedicated parents, who love and cherish them and many, many family members who do the same. You have, in fact, to date done a remarkable job in meeting the children’s needs and in ensuring that all the people who are important to them continue to be a part of their lives. I saw a lot of good will in terms of how you see each other as parents. I congratulate you and hope that with the passage of time, your coparenting of these wonderful kids will become more enhanced and seamless. [ 62 ] On the issue of costs, I can tell you that notwithstanding the Rule 24 presumption in favour of a successful party being entitled to an order for costs, there is a good deal of case law which states that courts are reluctant to grant costs on issues of mobility, the reason being that the left-behind parent has little choice but to attempt to oppose a relocation. Andrew had very good reason to do so in this case, because, as I have indicated, there is no doubt that a shared parenting regime would be in place if the parties lived in the same location. He had much to lose in relation to Dominique’s request to relocate three hours away. It may be that her legal fees are the price that she will have to ultimately bear to get the result that she has. [ 63 ] However, if costs for this trial are being sought and there is no agreement on them, written submissions of no more than three, 12-point font pages, along with Offers to Settle and Bills of Costs may be submitted to me at 10-day intervals from today and I will make a decision. Date: March 7, 2025 Madam Justice T. Engelking COURT FILE NO.: FC-23-134 DATE: 2025/03/07 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Dominique Brohart Applicant – and – Andrew Brohart Respondent REASONS FOR Decision Madam Justice T. Engelking Released : March 7, 2025
minicounsel