Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Court File No.: 1175/24
Date: January 14, 2025

Between:
John Little, Applicant
and
River Arizona Poyton-Skevington, Respondent

Before: Alex Pazaratz

Counsel:
Theodora I. Ubachukwu, Counsel for the Applicant
Jennifer Vandenberg, Counsel for the Respondent

Heard: January 10, 2025

Endorsement

Introduction

Relocation cases are tough enough. Life-altering decisions about infants shouldn’t be left to the randomness of which subsidized housing authority happens to have an opening at any given time.

This is a motion in relation to 10-month-old Georgia.

I will refer to some of the materials filed, to summarize the situation.

The Father’s Motion and Affidavit

The father’s October 21, 2024 motion included requests for the following temporary relief:

a. Permission to bring a motion prior to a Case Conference due to urgency.
b. Decision-making to father.
c. Child to reside with father.
d. Mother to return child to City of Hamilton forthwith.
e. Police enforcement.
f. Mother not to remove child from Hamilton.
g. Costs.

The father’s October 21, 2024 affidavit includes the following narrative:

a. The parties started living together in June 2023 and separated at the end of September 2024.
b. They have one child, Georgia.
c. The child was born in Hamilton and lived with both parties in Hamilton until late September 2024 when the mother moved with the child to Grey County without the father’s consent, and without notice.
d. For the first six months of the child’s life, the father was actively involved.
e. The father suspects the mother made false claims that she was a victim of domestic violence to secure housing quickly. He denies the mother’s allegation that he was ever violent to her.
f. The mother has no family or friends in the Grey County area.
g. The mother is on maternity leave from her job at Telus Health where she works remotely answering clients’ calls. She did not move for employment. Her childcare plans are uncertain, when she returns to work in February 2025.
h. It is in the best interests of the young child to spend significant and frequent periods of time with both parents. This is not possible if the mother has relocated the child 2.5 hours away from the father.
i. The child was already becoming based in Hamilton where the father has extended family.
j. The father has two children from a previous relationship, ages 7 and 6. They are with him on alternate weekends and Georgia has a close bond with her siblings.
k. The mother has not provided the father with her new address. She suggests they meet halfway for parenting exchanges. This would entail the child spending significant time in the car for each period of time with the father.
l. If the mother is not prepared to return to Hamilton with the child, the father proposes that the child reside primarily with him.

Procedural History

On October 23, 2024, Justice Bale determined that there was urgency to the father’s motion, and arranged an early Case Conference.

On October 31, 2024, Justice Brown held a Case Conference. A Settlement Conference was scheduled for February 20, 2025 at 11 a.m. The father’s motion was adjourned to the timelines to allow him to retain and consult with counsel. The father has now returned that motion.

The Mother’s Affidavit

The mother’s January 2, 2025 affidavit includes the following narrative:

a. She told the father she was moving. They exchanged texts. The father asked her to call him when she “settled in.” He also asked about details of the move, like furniture. He never expressed any objection to the mother moving.
b. The mother applied for subsidized housing based on the fact that she was a victim of domestic abuse. She applied in many jurisdictions, in the hope that one would come available quickly. She was living with the father and feared retribution. Her request for subsidized housing was supported by her therapist.
c. She took the first subsidized housing which was offered to her, which was in Meaford, Ontario.
d. She denies that the father was actively involved in Georgia’s care. She gives examples of responsibilities she undertook.
e. It is inappropriate for Georgia to be with the father on an overnight basis.
f. Until October 12, 2024, the father never spent more than three hours alone with the child. He rarely changed a diaper and did not participate in feeding the child since birth.
g. The father is a self-employed drywaller who works 12 to 14 hour shifts, 6 to 7 days a week. His demanding schedule would not allow him to personally care for the child.
h. The father has approximately 40 python snakes and keeps live rats on hand to feed them. These animals frequently escape and the mother fears for Georgia’s safety while at the father’s home. This is a sanitary and safety issue.
i. After separation, the father moved in with a male roommate in a three-bedroom house. The arrangements for the roommate, all the animals, and the father’s other two children (when they visit) are unknown.
j. Georgia is still breast-feeding and is strongly attached to the mother.
k. The mother has facilitated visits since she relocated. At times the father has had difficulty dealing with basic issues like feeding and changing diapers.
l. Subsidized housing in Hamilton would be unaffordable.
m. The father still gets weekly visits. They alternate driving.
n. The parties have spoken of salvaging their relationship. They had their first counselling session on December 19th. They discussed taking 3-6 months to see how things are going, before proceeding with any motions.

The Father’s Reply Affidavit

The father’s January 6, 2025 affidavit includes the following narrative:

a. The mother made him aware of her relocation plans one day prior to moving. The father did not consent or acquiesce. He was simply trying to remain amicable, out of fear that the mother would deny him parenting time.
b. If the mother returns to Hamilton, they can share a 2-2-3 parenting schedule.
c. He denies allegations of abuse.
d. The father attended medical appointments with the child before the mother moved away.
e. The mother did not comply with the relocation provisions of the CLRA (during submissions, the mother’s lawyer acknowledged this).
f. His work schedule as a drywaller is infrequent. When Georgia was born, he cut back on advertising and remained home to be with Georgia as much as possible.
g. He denies having undeclared income.
h. The father has removed the rodents and is actively re-homing all reptiles. There was never a danger. The mother has cats and dogs who are also capable of transmitting illnesses.
i. He has adequate facilities in his home.
j. Living 2.5 hours away in the winter months will interfere with timesharing because of unpredictable weather conditions. The mother has relocated to an area which gets a lot of snow, which makes travelling by car dangerous for the child.
k. The father has had no difficulty caring for the child during his parenting time. He has extensive experience as a parent, from raising his older two children. He has taken parenting classes.
l. The parties have spoken of salvaging their relationship. But the father is uncertain whether the mother is sincere or simply lulling him into accepting the relocation and withdrawing his motion.

The Court’s Analysis

While the father seeks immediate relief, the court has an obligation to the child – and to the overall resolution of this case – to take a broader, longer-term perspective.

This is a very young child. Georgia was only about six months old when the mother relocated. She’s still only 10 months old.

Even if geography wasn’t an issue, there would still be many parenting issues to be carefully determined and refined in the months and years to come. There are many serious allegations back and forth. But despite the acrimony and the complaints about one another, it appears to be common ground that Georgia should grow up knowing both parents and having a meaningful relationship with both parents. During submissions, the mother’s lawyer indicated the mother is prepared to agree to the father having alternate weekends including overnights.

The problem, of course, is that with the mother having relocated to Meaford, Ontario, the geographic separation between the parties largely eliminates opportunities for the father’s role in the child’s life to fully develop.

Relocation cases are difficult. Sometimes parents have to move. And even in those cases, relocation should not occur until proper notice has been given and there has been an opportunity for the best interests of the child to be determined. This did not occur in this case, and it should have occurred. It should still occur.

In this case, the mother says she had to move suddenly, and without notice, because she applied for subsidized housing “in many jurisdictions” and she had to take the first spot that was offered to her. She says in this case that subsidized accommodation was in Meaford, and that’s why she moved to that community.

While the father denies any family violence, it is not necessary for me to make that determination today. The courts are very much alive to the serious impact of family violence on parties and children, and at the motion stage, based on the mother’s evidence, I make no determination that she was wrong to leave the relationship, or that she was wrong to seek subsidized housing.

The mother hasn’t identified her long-term residential plans. But while Meaford may have been a short-term emergency stop, there is very little about indefinite residence in Meaford that can be justified – and there are a lot of reasons why indefinite residence in such a distant and remote community would seriously prejudice the best interests of a very young child who has a right to grow up knowing both parents.

The mother says she didn’t select Meaford – that it was simply offered as the first available spot by subsidized housing authorities. Again, while that might have been a short-term necessity, it is inappropriate for profoundly life-altering decisions to be made randomly by a housing authority, simply on the basis of where there happened to be a spot available at the time.

I do not fault the mother for relocating to Meaford. But it is not in the best interests of Georgia that the child remain in that jurisdiction. The mother and child should relocate back to Hamilton as quickly as it can be arranged, having regard to all relevant factors including safety (I make no determination that the mother’s actual address would need to be disclosed) and finances.

I am not prepared to impose any change to the existing parenting arrangement on an interim basis. The mother appears to be doing an excellent job caring for the child. It is disputed whether the father is doing an excellent job during his time with the child. But even the mother acknowledges the father should have regular parenting time, and his relationship with the child should be allowed to grow spontaneously and generously. The father can only fully become a father if he has an opportunity to interact with the child in a frequent, regular manner, and this cannot be achieved when the parties are living so far apart (with so little justification).

While it is difficult for me to make any credibility determinations based on the materials before me, if these parties are unable to resolve matters, the court will have to make determinations on many topics, including the exact circumstances under which the mother ended up in Meaford (as opposed to another location). In her materials, the mother states she applied for subsidized housing in many jurisdictions, but the father submits there has been a lack of clarity as to which jurisdictions she applied to and what her options would have been. Her past efforts and her future efforts will be relevant in determining parental insight and the willingness of each parent to promote the child’s relationship with the other parent.

The only hope for Georgia growing up with the full benefit of two loving parents is if the parties reside in sufficient proximity to one another that regular interaction between parent and child can occur.

While a temporary relocation out of the City of Hamilton may well have been unavoidable, there is no justification for this becoming a permanent impediment to a loving relationship with her father. Mother and child have not been in Meaford very long. Any disruption they may experience in soon relocating back to Hamilton is more than outweighed by the benefit of re-introducing the father as a more regular and accessible parent.

And while the mother has emphasized the financial basis for her relocation in search of subsidized housing, I would note that her maternity leave will soon be ending. She is scheduled to return to work in February 2025. At that point her finances will be improved. And once she and the child are in Hamilton, the father may be able to help with child-care, thereby reducing some of the mother’s expenses.

We are dealing with a very young child, so we have to do some serious thinking about planning her future. There are many parenting regimes which may ultimately benefit this child. But so long as the child is in Meaford, the parenting options will be significantly and needlessly restricted.

Order

Today’s order:

a. The father’s motion is adjourned for continuation, without a return date. It is to be spoken to at the February 20, 2025 Settlement Conference.
b. The mother shall immediately pursue all necessary arrangements to relocate the child’s ordinary residence back to the City of Hamilton. The mother shall provide the father with written updates (through counsel) at the end of each month, commencing at the end of January 2025. No deadline for the relocation is being determined at this time, but for clarity this court expects that it will be measured in months. If the mother does not make conscientious efforts to comply with this order, it may renew consideration of primary placement of the child with the father until the mother is able to relocate.
c. The mother shall provide the father with written confirmation of all efforts and documents relating to her application for subsidized housing, which led to her relocation in September 2024. This shall include confirmation of which jurisdictions she applied to, and which housing options she was offered (and when).
d. The mother shall forthwith apply for all available subsidized housing in Hamilton, and provide the father (through counsel) with written confirmation of the applications made and of any response received.
e. Pending further order, the father’s time with the child shall include alternate weekends from Friday evening until Sunday evening, the weekends to coincide with the weekends when the father has the other two children in his care. Driving shall be shared. However, the child shall not be taken to the father’s home until there are no snakes or pet rats in the residence.
f. In the absence of any other agreement, the father shall pick up the child at 2 pm on alternate Fridays, and the mother shall pick up the child Sunday at 5 pm.

Justice Alex Pazaratz
Date: January 14, 2025