SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: FC249/24 DATE: December 29, 2025
FAMILY COURT
RE: Daniel Saylor, Applicant
AND:
Erin Elizabeth Wellington, Respondent
BEFORE: TOBIN J.
COUNSEL: Matthew Villeneuve, for the Applicant
Kaila Meddoui, for the Respondent
HEARD: December 17, 2025, in person
ENDORSEMENT
THE MOTIONS
[ 1 ] The respondent (“mother”) moves for the following relief:
(a) Allowing her to move the residence of the parties’ two children to London;
(b) Allowing her to enroll the children in a school near her proposed London residence;
(c) Changing the children’s dentist to one located in London;
(d) Defining a parenting time schedule for the Christmas 2025 holiday period; and
(e) Allowing the parties’ older child to attend counselling at St. Clair Child & Youth Network and that the costs associated with it be shared in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines section 7.
[ 2 ] In his cross-motion, the applicant (“father”) asks that the mother’s motion be dismissed.
[ 3 ] When argument of the motions began, counsel advised that a consent had been signed regarding the Christmas 2025 holiday period parenting time and the counselling request. An order shall issue in terms of the consent filed.
FACTS
[ 4 ] The parties started living together in 2018 and married on September 21, 2022. They are the parents of two children, Nixon, now age seven, and Levi, now age five.
[ 5 ] While living together, the mother was the children’s primary caregiver. Her work schedule was based “around the children’s schedules.”
[ 6 ] The father was the family breadwinner. He worked full time at a chemical plant in Corunna.
[ 7 ] The parties separated on September 21, 2023 but remained under the same roof until February 28, 2024. They resided in Appin.
[ 8 ] On February 28, 2024, the mother was charged with assaulting the father. She was required to leave the matrimonial home that day. The charge was subsequently withdrawn. The mother entered into a peace bond which expired September 27, 2025.
[ 9 ] When the mother left the matrimonial home, she and the children moved into the home of her parents who live in Corunna (sometimes referred to as the “maternal grandparents”). She and the children continue to live with the mother’s parents.
[ 10 ] This case was started by an application issued on behalf of the father dated March 7, 2024.
[ 11 ] On March 15, 2024, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement on an interim, interim and without prejudice basis, dealing with parenting time and child support. The parties agreed that the father would have parenting time with the children:
(a) From Friday after school (or 3:30 p.m.) to Sunday at 5 p.m. The mother would have the children on the fourth weekend of each month;
(b) When Nixon attended school in Corunna, the father would have parenting time on Monday and Tuesday evening from the end of school (or 3:30 p.m.) until 6 p.m.; and,
(c) Any additional time as agreed to by the parties.
[ 12 ] The agreement also provided that the father would pick up the children from school at the commencement of his parenting time and return them to a specific location at the end of his weekend parenting time.
[ 13 ] The parties also agreed that the mother was to enrol Nixon at a school in the maternal grandparents’ catchment area.
[ 14 ] This change in school was required because the mother had to move from the matrimonial home with the children.
[ 15 ] Shortly after the parenting time schedule was agreed to, it had to be changed. According to the mother, the change was needed because the father “had to cancel his weeknight visits… as he could not make them work with his work schedule.”
[ 16 ] As time passed, the parties have been flexible and able to work out the father’s parenting time “generally without issue.” The father’s evidence is similar. He states that communication has improved “to some extent.”
[ 17 ] Beginning in October 2025, the parties agreed, without the involvement of counsel, that the father’s parenting time schedule would be as follows:
(a) On weekends 1 and 2, from pickup at school on Friday until Sunday at 7 p.m. The father described this arrangement as him having the children for two weekends and then the mother having them for one weekend. He described it as a 2-1 rotation;
(b) Every Monday from pickup at school until 6 p.m. with one child. In his evidence, the father states that the agreement provides the children will alternate being in his care on Monday evenings. This means that the father will have one child each Monday on an alternating schedule.
(c) Alternating Tuesdays from after school so that the father may take the children to an extracurricular activity which will continue until December. The mother or maternal grandmother is to pick up Levi at 7 p.m. Nixon will remain with the father until the end of his class at 8 p.m. at which time he will be returned to the mother’s residence.
[ 18 ] This is the current schedule.
[ 19 ] The parties agreed that the current schedule would be reviewed by the first week of January 2026 by the parties “… and/or in the event either party changes their residence.” The agreement also provides that if either party changes their residence, they agree to keep the parenting schedule in place “only amending the exchange times and locations.”
[ 20 ] After the mother and children moved to the home of the maternal grandparents, she looked for new employment.
[ 21 ] It was difficult for the mother to find new and suitable employment.
[ 22 ] The mother was able to find part-time work (a) at a brewery (one to two shifts per week) and (b) teaching yoga.
[ 23 ] The mother’s affidavit includes a list of 82 jobs she applied for between May 17, 2024, and December 10, 2024. As well, it is her evidence that she applied for an additional 18 jobs that were not included on the list. “A good portion of the jobs” the mother applied for were in the London and surrounding area. The father was kept apprised of her attempts to obtain employment.
[ 24 ] On August 12, 2025, the mother was offered a job in London as a medical aesthetician. She had interviewed for this position in November 2024. This was the first offer she received. That same day, she texted the father to let him know about this job offer.
[ 25 ] The mother accepted the job and began working on August 20, 2025. She drives back and forth from Corunna every day. This is difficult for the mother because of the children’s schedules. The mother is fortunate that her parents are able to help when she is not able to drop off or pick up the children.
[ 26 ] In a letter sent to father’s counsel, dated August 16, 2025, the father was advised of the mother’s intention to move to the residence she had secured in London.
[ 27 ] On October 29, 2025, the mother began working at her job on a full-time basis.
[ 28 ] In addition to obtaining employment, the mother has secured a rental home to live in with the children in London. The home is owned by a friend of hers. This home is vacant and available for her now.
[ 29 ] The home “has the option for the children to have their own room, has a fenced in back yard and a big rec/playroom.”
[ 30 ] The neighbourhood is described as quiet and full of families.
[ 31 ] The mother proposes that the children attend the neighbourhood public school, which is within walking distance of the home. The school has a before and after-school program run by the YMCA.
[ 32 ] As part of the mother’s plan, she will have the support of others to assist her with childcare if needed.
THE ISSUE
[ 33 ] The central issue to be decided on these motions now before the Court is whether an order should issue allowing the mother to move with the children to London and to change the school they attend.
THE POSITION OF THE PARTIES
[ 34 ] The following is a summary of the positions advanced by the parties.
[ 35 ] The mother’s position is that she should be allowed to move because it will not affect the existing parenting schedule the father has with the children. She also argues that the move is in the best interests of the children. If allowed to move, the children will need to attend the public school in the catchment area of her intended residence.
[ 36 ] The father’s position is that the proposed move will have a significant impact on his relationship with the children. He argues that the mother’s request to move is a relocation within the meaning of that term under the Divorce Act . When a parent wants to relocate, a specific notice is required to be given under the Act . The mother failed to do so. On this basis, the mother’s motion should be dismissed. In any event, the move proposed by the mother is not in the best interests of the children. He will lose parenting time with them because of distance. They will need to change schools, again. The mother’s plan is not well developed or conceived. It is not a comprehensive plan.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
[ 37 ] In her statement of law, the mother made reference to the Divorce Act , RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp), as being the governing legislation in this case.
[ 38 ] In his statement of law, the father referred to the Children's Law Reform Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, as being the governing legislation.
[ 39 ] In deciding which Act to apply, I take into account that, in his application, the father asked for a divorce.
[ 40 ] In these circumstances, I will consider the issue raised under the Divorce Act .
[ 41 ] Under the Divorce Act , when a parent wants to change the place of a child’s residence, a notice, in writing, must be given to the other parent. The notice is to provide the date the change in residence is expected to occur, the address of the new residence, and contact information of the parent or child: see Divorce Act , s. 16.8(1) and (2) .
[ 42 ] The term “change in the place of residence of a child” is not defined in the Divorce Act . However, the term “relocation” is defined at s. 2(1) as follows:
2 (1) In this Act,
relocation means a change in the place of residence of a child of the marriage or a person who has parenting time or decision-making responsibility — or who has a pending application for a parenting order — that is likely to have a significant impact on the child’s relationship with
(a) a person who has parenting time, decision-making responsibility or an application for a parenting order in respect of that child pending; or
(b) a person who has contact with the child under a contact order…
[ 43 ] When a parent wants to relocate, the provisions of s. 16.9 are engaged. A relocation will occur if the proposed change in the place of residence of the children is likely to have a significant impact on the children’s relationship with, in this case, their father.
[ 44 ] If the proposed move constitutes a relocation as defined in the Divorce Act , the obligations on the relocating parent are greater than those if the move does not have a significant impact on the children’s relationship with the non-moving parent. In the situation of a relocation, the non-moving parent is accorded significant rights, presumptive burdens are imposed, and the Court is provided with statutory direction regarding the factors that must be taken into account when determining whether the proposed move is in the children’s best interests. [^1]
[ 45 ] In S.C. v. J.C ., 2022 ONSC 4146 , at paras. 22 and 23 , Jain J. set out what the Court must consider when deciding whether a proposed move is a change in residence as follows:
[22] A “change in residence” refers to a move that is not significant to the other parent or party within the meaning of s. 18(1) of the CLRA . Whether the move is “significant” has no specific parameters or radius, which means that “significance” is assessed on a case-by-case basis. As set out in the CLRA , whether a move is deemed “significant” will depend on whether the change in address will “significantly impact” the child’s relationship with the other (non-moving) parent or party. The CLRA requires that any parent or party who has decision-making responsibility or parenting time with a child must communicate, in advance, an intended change in residence to any other person who has decision-making responsibility, parenting time, or contact rights with that child. Notice must be provided in writing, setting out the date on which the change is expected to occur, and setting out the new address and any new contact information. There is no prescribed timeline on how far in advance this notice needs to be provided, for a change in residence.
[23] Simply put, if a move is not a “relocation” within the meaning of s. 18(1) of the CLRA , it must be a “change of residence.” Therefore, every “relocation” is a “change of residence”, but not every “change of residence” is a “relocation” as defined by the CLRA .
[ 46 ] S.C. v. J.C . was decided under the Children's Law Reform Act . However, the contents of these paragraphs apply equally to cases brought under the Divorce Act . The purpose and intent of the “relocation” and “change of residence” provisions in both Acts are the same.
APPLICATION OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
[ 47 ] I will now consider whether the mother’s proposed move is a “change in the place of residence of a child … that is likely to have a significant impact on the child’s relationship with” the father.
[ 48 ] This consideration will be undertaken in a child-focused approach and be based on the circumstances of this family. Factors to consider include: (a) whether and how the move might change the amount and frequency of the father’s parenting time (b) whether there should be a change in pickup and return responsibility; (c) whether the father’s ability to be involved with the children’s activities and schooling will be affected; (d) whether the driving time between the father’s residence and the mother’s residence will affect the parent-child relationship; and (e) whether the father has the ability financially or otherwise to pick up or bring the children to and from the mother’s proposed residence to his: see D.T.D. v. T.A.J. 2022 SKCA 34 , at para. 47 .
(a) whether and how the move might change the amount and frequency of the father’s parenting time
[ 49 ] The father currently works weekdays from 7 a.m. until 3:30 p.m.
[ 50 ] If the mother moves to London as she proposes, the father will not be able to pick up the children from school at the beginning of his parenting time now scheduled to be 3:30 p.m.
[ 51 ] At present, the children attend school in Corunna. The father’s place of employment is 3.9 kilometers from the school. Once he picks up the children, he travels approximately 71 kilometers to his home in Appin. At the end of his parenting time, the return trip to the home of the maternal grandparents is approximately 71 kilometers.
[ 52 ] If the move takes place and the children change schools, the distance between the father’s place of employment and the school the children would attend is approximately 115 kilometers. The father would not be able to pick up the children until approximately 4:45 p.m. He would then need to drive them to his home in Appin, a distance of approximately 45 kilometers.
[ 53 ] Without any adjustments to the parenting time schedule, the father will lose approximately 2.5 hours during weekday parenting time. He will lose approximately 1.25 hours of parenting time on weekend parenting time.
[ 54 ] The frequency of the father’s parenting time will not be affected by the proposed move.
(b) whether there should be a change in pickup and return responsibility
[ 55 ] In order to address the loss of time the father has with the children due to the extra burden of having to travel to London from his place of employment, the father’s parenting time can be extended briefly, and the mother can be required to pick up the children from the father’s place of residence during his weekday parenting time. This change would make up most of the lost time resulting from the move. Also, it would allow the father to have more time with the children in his home as opposed to having to transport them to the mother’s residence at the end of his parenting time.
(c) whether the father’s ability to be involved with the children’s activities and schooling will be affected
[ 56 ] The evidence does not suggest that the move would affect the father’s involvement in the children’s activities or schooling.
(d) whether the driving time between the father’s residence and the mother’s residence will affect the parent-child relationship
[ 57 ] Aside from additional travel time, the father did not give evidence as to how the move would affect the quality of the children’s relationship with him.
(e) whether the father has the ability financially or otherwise to pick up or bring the children to and from the mother’s proposed residence to his
[ 58 ] The father did not provide evidence that he would not be able to manage the commute, whether financially or otherwise.
Other considerations
[ 59 ] I also take into account that the mother’s move with the children to the home of her parents was not intended to be a permanent one following the parties’ physical separation.
[ 60 ] The mother kept the father informed of her efforts to find full-time employment, including in the London area.
[ 61 ] The move will require these young children to change schools, but this does not, of necessity, make this a relocation case. As was stated by Jain J. in S.C. v. J.C. at para. 26 :
[26] The change to the children’s school and community do not necessarily make the proposed move qualify as a “relocation” either…
[ 62 ] That statement is applicable to the case now before the Court.
[ 63 ] The father did not provide any evidence that the change of the children’s school as proposed by the mother would affect their relationship with him.
[ 64 ] Before a request to change one’s residence will be considered as a “relocation” under the Divorce Act , the move must have a significant impact. This means that the legislation recognizes and allows for some impact arising from the move. It is only when the impact on the relationship is significant that the relocation provisions from the Divorce Act are engaged: see D.T.D. v. T.A.J . at para. 46 .
[ 65 ] Despite Mr. Villeneuve’s able argument, I find that, with some adjustments to the father’s parenting time and driving responsibility, the move proposed by the mother is not likely to have a significant impact on the children’s relationship with the father.
[ 66 ] The mother’s move does not amount to a relocation. The provisions of s. 16.9 are not engaged.
[ 67 ] The mother has provided the information required under s. 16.8.
Best interests considerations
[ 68 ] I also find that the mother’s proposed plan is in the children’s best interests.
The children will continue to reside with their primary caregiver. The mother remains willing and able to identify and meet the children’s needs.
The mother’s move to her parents’ home was not a long-term plan. Allowing the mother to move with the children to London allows her to maintain employment for which she has training. The move will provide the mother with stable financial security which in turn benefits the children. Based on the job searches she undertook, this was not available to her in the Corunna area. There is no evidence that the mother turned down full-time employment opportunities and income in the Corunna area.
The mother’s plan includes appropriate housing, schooling, care for the children and support from third parties when needed. The father argues that the mother’s plan is not well thought out and is vague. With respect, I disagree. She described where she is going to live, the school the children will attend, the childcare she can obtain, and the persons from whom she will receive third-party support included her parents. The children will be able to continue the type of extracurricular activities they now enjoy.
The mother’s commitment to supporting the father’s relationship with the children has not changed.
The children’s relationship with the father will continue.
The views and preferences of the children were not before the Court. However, given their young age, they would not attract significant weight if they were.
[ 69 ] The respondent may change the children’s dentist to one located in London. She has been responsible for taking the children to the dentist. Obtaining a dentist in London will be more convenient for the respondent than taking the children to the dentist located in Glencoe.
[ 70 ] For these reasons, the mother’s request to change the children’s residence, school, and dentist will be granted.
ORDER
[ 71 ] The following temporary order shall issue under the Divorce Act :
The Respondent is permitted to change the place of residence of the children to 115 Josselyn Drive, London, Ontario.
Pending further review of the parties’ parenting plan as provided for in their “Custody Agreement” of October 21, 2025, or the parties agreeing otherwise:
a) The Applicant shall pick up the children from their school (or after-school daycare) in London at the beginning of his regular weekday and weekend parenting time;
b) The Applicant’s parenting time on Mondays and Tuesdays shall end at 7:30 p.m.;
c) The Respondent shall pick up the children at the end of the Applicant’s parenting time on Mondays and Tuesdays in Appin.
The Respondent may change the children’s dentist to one located in London, Ontario.
The Applicant’s motion dated December 9, 2025 is dismissed.
COSTS:
The parties are encouraged to settle the issue of costs. However, if they are unable to do so, the Respondent shall serve and file her costs submissions within 14 days after the release of this endorsement. The Applicant shall serve and file his costs submissions within 14 days after being served with the Respondent’s costs submissions.
Costs submissions shall be no longer than three pages together with any Offers to Settle and a Bill of Costs. Costs submissions shall be double spaced with characters of at least 12-point size.
As required by r.24(16), a party who opposes a claim for costs respecting fees or expenses shall provide documentation showing the parties own fees and expenses.
Costs submissions are to be emailed to Agnes.Yang@ontario.ca .
“Justice B. Tobin”
Justice B. Tobin
Date: December 29, 2025
[^1]: See Hiebert v. Hiebert , 2025 ONSC 6595 , at para. 88 . This is a decision of Price J. It was not referred to by counsel, however, para. 88 provides a helpful and concise summary of the law which is applicable to the case now before the Court and was not a matter of dispute between the parties. In this case, it is the application of the provisions that is in dispute.