CITATION: C.A. v. T.H., 2026 ONSC 3670

COURT FILE NO.: FS-24-00174-00

DATE: 2026-06-23

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

C.A.

F. Pottinger, for the Applicant

Applicant

• and -

T.H.

H. Mackenzie, for the Respondent

S. Filipovic, for the Children’s Lawyer

Respondent

HEARD: April 28, 29, 30 & May 1, 2026 at Thunder Bay, Ontario

Regional Senior Justice W.D. Newton

Reasons For Judgment

Overview

1The sole issue in this application is whether the mother¹ should be allowed to relocate with her 12 ½ -year-old son to Sudbury from Thunder Bay² where she shares equal parenting time of their son with the father.

2Financial issues were resolved by settlement prior to and during the trial.

3For the reasons that follow, the mother’s application to relocate their son to Sudbury is dismissed.

Procedural History to Date

4This Application was originally commenced as a “simple” application for Divorce, meaning no other relief was sought from the Court, in August 2024. The application was amended a year later, in August 2025, to claim child support, an order for joint decision making, and an order permitting the mother to relocate with the child from Thunder Bay to Sudbury, or failing an order for relocation, an order for specified parenting time for the mother with the child.

5The father filed an Answer disputing the relocation on the grounds that the parties have had equal shared parenting of their son since separation in December 2014.

6There was a consent order requesting the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”) to ascertain the views and preferences of the child.

7Trial management conferences were held before Nieckarz J. who directed that the “in-chief” evidence of all witnesses should be delivered by affidavit and that the OCL could provide the views and preferences of the child, as well as relevant context, by way of a Request to Admit, Statement of Agreed Facts, or from the counsel table.

8Nieckarz J. noted in the endorsement dated March 9, 2026 that the mother acknowledged that she bears the onus of demonstrating that a relocation is in the best interests of the child.

The Facts

Agreed Statement of Facts

9The parties filed an agreed Statement of Facts. Key admitted facts are the following.

Biographical Information

a. The mother is 41. The father is 44;

b. They married in 2010;

c. They had one child together, a son, born in 2013. He is now 12 ½;

d. The parents separated in December 2014 and have not lived together since;

e. They executed a separation agreement in 2015 which provides for “joint custody” and shared decision making³ (“make major decisions for the child with each other based on the child’s best interest”); and

f. The parents share “parenting time” equally on a “week-on/week-off” basis. Special occasions are shared in accordance with the separation agreement.

Other Immediate Family

g. The son is the mother’s only child; the father has a son from another relationship who is 8 ½;

h. The mother “re-partnered” in 2022 and resides with her new partner;

i. Her new partner has 3 children: an adult son, 19 who resides with him; and 2 other children – a daughter, 12, and a son, 10, who reside with their mother in Sault Ste. Marie; and

j. The father does not cohabit with anyone other than when he has parenting time with his two sons.

Son’s Health

k. The son is cared for by a paediatrician in Thunder Bay. He was diagnosed with ADHD when he was 7;

l. His family doctor is in Thunder Bay;

m. He had an autism assessment in August 2025. The assessment did not conclude that the son was on the autism spectrum;

n. He takes medication for ADHD daily;

o. He “continues to struggle in school with respect to his peers, his teachers and the administrators”; and

p. In March 2026, the parents met with a school psychologist who opined that the son’s issues “may be stemming from anxiety and the desire to control the situation” and a follow-up appointment has been made to discuss anti-anxiety medication with the family doctor.

Parent’s Employment

q. The mother is employed with the federal government since 2021 and is a member of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

r. She works primarily from home and goes to her office in Thunder Bay twice per month.

s. To stay within her region, the furthest south she can relocate is Sudbury;

t. The father is employed as a food services manager and has part-time employment as a dietary aid at the hospital.

Evidence at Trial

10At trial, affidavits were filed from the applicant mother, the mother’s new partner, and the maternal grandmother. Affidavits were filed from the respondent father and the paternal grandmother. An affidavit was also filed from a business owner who employs the father occasionally with respect to the father’s employment. Since the financial issues were resolved, it was unnecessary to rely upon this affidavit. The witnesses were cross-examined on their affidavits with reply questioning as necessary.

11Ms. Filipovic, on behalf of the OCL, prepared a Request to Admit summarising her investigation and setting out the views and preferences of the child and also made brief submissions.

The Mother’s Affidavit

12The mother was born in Ontario. Her maternal extended family is from Thunder Bay. However, she was raised in the Caribbean, first to age 2, in St. Lucia, and then, in Antigua, until she was 17.

13At 17, she returned to Thunder Bay for college.

14The mother said that she is connected to her Caribbean roots and was the treasurer of the African Caribbean Association of Canada for several years. She has attended gatherings in Thunder Bay for Black History Month and Caribbean festivals.

15She deposed that being closer to Toronto⁴ would allow her, her son and the rest of the family to attend Caribana. She says that she has extended family in Toronto and Barrie that are connected to her Caribbean heritage and that moving closer to her extended community would allow her to increase her connection to her culture and share this connection with her son.

16Her son attends public school in Thunder Bay and is in grade 7. He has attended the same school since senior kindergarten. She states that the school has done its best to work with the parents regarding their son’s behavioral issues, but says that their son has experienced suspensions, bullying and difficulty forming relationships with his peers. She says that this has resulted in isolation and other challenges for the son at school. She describes the bullying at school as “relentless”.

17In addition to medication for ADHD, the mother uses behavioral tools such as breaks, visual schedules, the chunking of tasks, and headphones with music to help her son manage his ADHD.

18She said that, despite his ADHD, her son is not a difficult child to parent. She describes him as warm, affectionate and responsive and says that he is capable, intelligent and hardworking, especially when he can focus on his tasks.

19The autism assessment was sought because the bullying and behavioral issues at school had become challenging. She said that the psychologist concluded that the son was “not autistic but just very ADHD.” After the school psychologist suggested that her son’s issues may be “stemming from anxiety and the desire to control the situation”, the family doctor prescribed a low dose of anti-anxiety medication. The doctor told her that is common for children around their son’s age with ADHD to struggle with anxiety. Since her son has been taking this medication, she has noticed a difference in his anxiety.

20She said that, since the parents separated shortly after their son’s first birthday, their son does not remember the family ever living together.

21She deposed that, regardless of the week-on/week-off, she is the parent primarily responsible for their son’s haircuts, clothing purchases, back to school shopping, “and the other mental load that is a vital part of parenting a young child”.

22Their son visits his maternal grandmother in British Columbia each summer. For the last two summers, the mother has driven the son to Winnipeg and then he has flown as an unaccompanied minor. She said that he has an “incredible bond” with his grandmother and enjoys the visits.

23She has a relationship with the mother of the father’s other son and often has her son’s half brother and her son in her care on school holidays or PA days. She says that she does this to ensure that her son’s relationship with his brother is beyond the father’s parenting time.

24She said that co-parenting with the father has been challenging, and that the conflict with the father has “escalated”. She cited, as an example, that the father was not flexible in changing dates for the 2025 Christmas parenting plan and attached emails she said demonstrate communication issues. She describes the co-parenting relationship as “high conflict”.

25She deposed that on one occasion in November 2024, the father was angry over how drop offs were handled and screamed at her. She said that “for a few seconds” she thought that he was going to run her over with his car. She said that this occurred in front of their son.

26With respect to relocation, the mother said that her new partner moved into her home in August 2022. They became engaged in March 2024 but do not have a wedding date. She said that she has a good relationship with the mother of her partner’s two children who resides with their mother in Sault Ste. Marie and that they have all vacationed together. Her partner’s son who resides with them is 18 and, like his father, is a carpenter. He wants to move to Sudbury with them.

27The mother said that her son gets along well with her new partner’s children in Sault Ste. Marie.

28She and her new partner have discussed relocating, and she said that they want to be closer to her partner’s children in Sault Ste. Marie. She said that the closest to Sault Ste. Marie she can move with her job is Sudbury.⁵ They would like to have the children from Sault Ste. Marie every other weekend and suggest that they would travel there regularly or agree on a halfway meeting point.⁶

29The mother believes that their son would “benefit from a fresh start” and that he is not thriving in Thunder Bay, despite the best efforts of his educators. She says that she and the father disagree on where their son would thrive and that she wanted to switch schools, but the father disagreed. She referenced an email from two years ago, April 5, 2024, in which the parents disagreed about whether a change in school would improve things for their son.

30She also referenced emails that the parents sent to the school on January 30, 2026 following a meeting about the son. She disagrees with information supplied by the father and stated:

…I believe that the school is and has been doing everything possible to support [their son]. The changes that have been made thus far have demonstrated significant and positive results. I don’t think we need to make changes to something that has been positively working. There have not been any issues with [their son] and I believe the support plan that is currently implemented is working. I don’t feel we should be making any changes unless there is a need or cause for intervention.

31While the mother states that she believed the school is doing what they can to support their son’s education, she sates that the bullying has “escalated beyond the control of the school”.

32She does not have a doctor in Sudbury and said that she was advised that she can register for a doctor in Sudbury once she has a Sudbury address.

33She states this in her affidavit:

80. I believe that it would be beneficial for [the child] to move with me to Sudbury for the following reasons:

a. Superior access to professionals who would be able to provide additional therapeutic supports for [the child];

b. A scholastic change that would place him in a new peer group, and facilitate him being able to develop friendships that would benefit his life;

c. Continued and substantially improved access to extracurriculars and activities that would align with [the son’s] interests such as coding, computer science, bowling and similar;

d. Furthering his relationship with [her partner’s children in Sault Ste. Marie], with whom he already has a great connection;

e. Improved economic circumstances for our overall household, particularly with respect to my career which would improve the financial position of our entire household; and

f. The substantial reduction in conflict between me and the Respondent.

34She states that their son “has expressed to me on multiple occasions that he would prefer to move to Sudbury with me and that he is aware of the move as their home is listed for sale”.

35She outlines her proposal for parenting time for the father if relocation is allowed in her affidavit as:

a. [the son] travel to Thunder Bay for each long weekend (whether a holiday or a PA day in months without holidays). Fortunately, there are several options for flights available including regular, daily flights on Bearskin Airlines. There is also a shuttle service and regional Go Train service to facilitate the flights from other airports in the area. I would ensure that [the son] securely boarded the flight.

b. Other weekends as agreed upon between the parties.

c. The Respondent to have every March Break with [the son].

d. [the son] to spend July with the Respondent every year;

e. [the son] to continue to share the Christmas break between us; and

f. Virtual and telephone contact on a regular basis, with scheduled dates and time as well free access to communicate with the Respondent at all reasonable times.

36Additional parenting time, including vacations, to be added in accordance with the terms of the separation agreement.

37She also states that a move to Sudbury means “considerably more job opportunities and greater advancement”. She has been with her current employer since September 2021.

Cross-examination of the Mother

38In cross-examination, the mother admitted that she did not discuss relocation to Sudbury with the father until 2022. Her new partner was born in British Columbia, grew up in Sault Ste. Marie, and, as noted, has children who reside in Sault Ste. Marie with their mother.

39Her mother had relocated to British Columbia from Thunder Bay in 2014.

40She has a sister who has moved back to Thunder Bay last September with her husband who is from Thunder Bay. She said that she is not “close” with her sister, having only been to her sister’s home four times. Her son has only been once, the day before her testimony, because the maternal grandmother is staying there during the trial.

41Emails put to her confirm that she has not always allowed the father to fully participate in some of the son’s therapy. She also delayed/declined treatment which resulted in the delay of their son’s ADHD diagnosis.

42Despite her perceived difficulties with the father, they co-operate. She provided childcare for their son when the father recently had a significant health issue requiring hospitalization.

43She confirmed that if she moved to Sudbury, she would be in the same employment position/category that she has in Thunder Bay with no increases in income.

44She said that her house in Thunder Bay has been sold in anticipation of the move to Sudbury. She and her partner, and, on alternate weeks, the son, now reside in a travel trailer and a newly constructed (2024) garage with two bedrooms upstairs on a rural property outside of Thunder Bay. Originally, the plan was to move there.

45She was cross-examined about an incident when their son reported to his counsellor that the mother’s new partner had threatened to harm him and the father if the son informed his father about circumstances in the mother’s household. The counsellor contacted CAS who apparently made no findings. She said that she never discussed this incident with their son and thought that it should be a discussion between her son and her new partner.

46She was asked about some of her son’s comments to the lawyer representing the OCL. The OCL lawyer noted that the son “doesn’t understand why his mom is saying that they are moving”⁷ and that he said the mother told him “it is for his safety”. The mother said that her son has told her on multiple occasions that he is going to get hurt at school because of the bullying, so she agreed that he was told this, but said that there was a lot more to it.

47The son also told the OCL lawyer that he “doesn’t like to discuss the move” and that there is too much “pressure on him” and that it creates stress for him. The mother’s response was that his stress was relating to all of his things getting moved. She also said that, at one point, he would have to come to court and did not want to be the one who had to decide. She denied that her son’s stress was related to any conflict between his parents about the move. She said that he knows we are moving to Sudbury. Although the OCL said that the son was not aware of any communication issues between his parents, the mother said that their son knows that they do no get along.

48The son also told the OCL lawyer that his relationship with the mother’s new partner’s children in Sault Ste. Marie is “problematic” to him. From his perspective, he is not treated equally by his mother and her new partner and that the other children receive special treatment. The mother explained that this is from a recent visit when the sister was put in charge and allowed to sit in the front seat, and the other son got chocolate milk, and he did not.

49He told the OCL lawyer that his mother is promising him things if he moves to Sudbury, but that he does not believe her. The mother said that she told him she would get him a “gaming computer”… “especially if he’s to move to Sudbury because he will need it for school”. She then said he would need a computer for “coding” at school.

50When asked about the loss of the father’s family in Thunder Bay if their son moves to Sudbury, she said that the paternal grandmother only became heavily involved in late 2024, after this litigation started, but admitted that the paternal grandmother was actively involved in her grandson’s care during COVID when the mother was working at a job that did not allow her to work from home.

51In re-examination, she said that their son would travel to Thunder Bay for parenting time with the father by flying from Toronto.

52She confirmed that her mother moved to British Columbia in 2013.

53Her sister and her husband in Thunder Bay do not have any children.

Mother’s New Partner’s Affidavit

54He deposed that he met the mother’s son when the son was seven years old and that they have developed a close relationship. They play video games and board games. He has taught the son how to drive a boat, fish, and build things.

55He said that the son has been bullied by other children when he has “tics” and that he has been doing better by ignoring the bullies at school.

56He said that the son has a close relationship with all of his children and is especially close with his son in Sault Ste. Marie since they are near in age.

57If permitted to re-locate, he would travel to Sault Ste. Marie at least every second weekend.

58He said if permitted to relocate, the son would benefit form different specialists and that there is less of a wait time for therapists and doctors.

59He has a brother in Sudbury who has five children aged eight to seventeen. The son met them during March break this year.

60He said that there has always been tension and arguments between the mother and father mostly around scheduling parenting time.

Cross-Examination of the Mother’s New Partner

61He was born in Sault Ste. Marie and resided there for most of his life. He lived in Sudbury for a year about six years ago and worked with his brother. He left Sudbury and returned to Sault Ste. Marie for better job opportunities.

62He moved to Thunder Bay in May 2023 because he had met the mother online in 2022. He also had a job opportunity in Thunder Bay. His oldest son who was then 14 moved with him.

63He has worked as a carpenter since he was sixteen. He has his own company. He works 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. His oldest son is also a carpenter now and works with him.

64He described his relationship with the mother’s son as friendly, not a stepfather/stepson relationship, more relaxed.

65The son talks to the other son in Sault Ste. Maire often through video games and by telephone about once per week.

66With respect to the incident in which the son disclosed to his counsellor that the mother’s new partner had made a threat against the father, he denied that he made a threat. He said that the son has expressed to him a concern that he would hurt his father. He said that he is stern in nature and that the son has a “healthy fear” of him as a “father figure”. He said that the son must have explained something “that came out the wrong way” for the counsellor to report this threat. He said that he told the son that he would never hurt his father.

67He said the son has a few friends in Thunder Bay.

68He said that the move to Sudbury was brought up two to three years ago, but the move was not feasible then because the son was too young.

69He said that reasons for the move include that he would be closer to his family and supports, that the son could develop a relationship with his cousins and that he would be closer to his other children. He would have more job security in Sudbury, but admitted that he has no concerns with his job security in Thunder Bay.

Maternal Grandmother’s Affidavit

70She has lived in White Rock, British Columbia since 2014. She said she visited the parents when they were together three to four times per year, including one month when her grandson was born. After they separated, her visit with her daughter and her grandson included three months in 2015, when her grandson broke his leg, one week at Christmas 2015, one week in 2022 when her daughter moved, and ten days in January 2026.

71Her daughter typically visits her once a year in British Columbia.

72She says that she has a very close relationship with her grandson. He spends on average about two- and one-half weeks with her each summer. She described what they do when he visits her in the summer, and her grandson picks their activities during the day. When her other daughter resided in British Columbia, she and her grandson would visit them several times, but her other daughter and her husband now live in Thunder Bay.

73She deposed that her grandson told her the father gets upset about the amount of time his son spends with her in the summer. She also said that the father would be upset when they were not available for scheduled Zoom calls when her grandson was with her.

Cross-Examination of the Maternal Grandmother

74She was born in British Columbia but moved to Thunder Bay as a young child. She moved around often and ended up in the Caribbean as a young woman. In the early 1980s, she returned to Thunder Bay with her husband and eldest daughter, and then returned to the Caribbean until 2006 when she returned to Thunder Bay. She then lived in London, Ontario and retuned to Thunder Bay in 2013, after separating from her husband, before moving to British Columbia.

75She has not considered moving back to Thunder Bay or a move to Sudbury.

76From 2018 to 2022, she would visit Thunder Bay for a week each year and stayed with her aunt and visited her daughter and grandson.

77She has not visited Thunder Bay very often recently.

78She could not remember her grandson saying anything that he liked about Thunder Bay but said he did mention his cousins. The only cousins he has are from his father’s family.

The Father’s Affidavit

79The father stated that the co-parenting relationship was “not without its challenges” but suffered when the mother announced, in 2022, that she would be moving to Sudbury. Previously, she had told him that they were moving to the country outside Thunder Bay.

80Initially, the parents shared parenting on a 2-2-3 schedule which changed to a week-on/week-off schedule in 2019 as their son got older.

81The father has another son who also resides with him on the same week-on/week-off schedule. That “half-brother” is eight- and one-half years old, about four years younger than his brother.

82The mother formerly made the claim for re-location a year ago, in June 2025.

83The father said that the mother has made unilateral decisions contrary to their separation agreement, such as changing health card address information.

84He also said that the mother has been neglectful in not pursuing or cancelling medical and counselling appointments for their son and registered their son for counselling without advising the father, did not allow the father to participate in counselling, and failed to tell the counsellor that the parents had “joint custody”.

85He said the mother has also not consulted him when registering their son for extra-curricular activities in the past.

86In 2022, when their son was eight, the mother told their son that they were moving to Sudbury. That was done without the father’s knowledge or approval and, he said, that this created a state of confusion within their son. Further, she told their son that they were “fighting” over this move.

87He said that the mother has requested that the son ask him to agree to travel with the mother during the father’s parenting time when the father has already told the mother that he did not consent.

88He stated that their son has told him and the son’s counsellor that the mother’s new partner had threatened to harm the father if the son did not stop informing the father about circumstances in the mother’s household. The mother and father met with the counsellor and, after this, the son was reluctant to speak to the counsellor.

89In November 2025, he was contacted by the police regarding a complaint that the had assaulted his son by hitting him in the back of the head with a bag of potato chips. The officer said that no charges would be laid, but that he had to report this to CAS. Neither the police or CAS investigated further.

90The father says that their son and his other son have a significant and nurturing bond and that their mothers have established a friendly relationship. He says that their son serves as an older brother and mentor to his half-brother while they reside together.

91His son has two cousins, aged thirteen and ten, his paternal grandmother, an aunt and uncle, and numerous great aunts and uncles as part of his life in Thunder Bay. Now, his maternal aunt and uncle also reside in Thunder Bay.

92The father says that he has been an advocate and an involved parent who has sought supports to address his son’s mental health and developmental needs.

93He says that his son has a strong network of educational, medical and mental health professionals already established in Thunder Bay, including: family doctor, pediatrician, school mental health nurse, Lakehead District School Board psychologist, psychologist at Harmony Health, professional supports at The Children's Centre, professional supports at Thunder Bay Counselling, and numerous teachers and educational assistants at his school who are familiar with and attuned his personal needs. He also has an extensive Individualized Education Plan that has been developed and implemented at his school that will follow him on to whichever high school he chooses.

94The son has recently had therapy at The Children’s Centre. He is very familiar with the Centre as he has had treatment for speech and language therapy, ADHD, and other behavior issues.

95The father participates in his son’s extracurricular activities and is a member of the School Counsel at his son’s school.

96The father also states that he has demonstrated commitment to attending his son’s bowling each week, including when their son is in his mother’s care.

Cross-Examination of the Father

97The father agreed that the terms of the separation agreement are important. The agreement provided for additional parenting time as agreed and that the parties should not insist on “strict adherence” to the parenting arrangements.

98He thought that the mother’s expressed desire to move to Sudbury in 2022 had disappeared, but then it resurfaced in June 2025.

99The father confirmed that conflict between the parents increased in 2022 when the mother announced her intention to move to Sudbury.

100He was cross-examined about some abusive language and comments to the mother via text messages in December 2022 when the father accused the mother of not having an interest in amicably co-parenting their son anymore. He agreed that this type of communication went both ways but that, generally, both parents were able to communicate about parenting issues.

101He was also cross-examined about an incident with the mother’s new partner at Christmas 2023. The father had to attend at the mother’s residence because she told him that she would not be transporting their son to him contrary to the terms of the separation agreement. At that time, he told the new partner that he did not get to have an opinion about parenting time, and he admitted that he used some derogatory language about the mother. He confirmed that there has not been any physical violence between him and the mother’s new partner.

102With respect to the son’s report of a threat to a counsellor, the father agreed that the CAS investigated with no findings.

103He also agreed that both of his sons have a relationship outside of the time that they are together with him because their mothers are now friends and so the sons spend time together when they are not just with him.

104Their son was recently suspended for two days from school for words with another student and the paternal grandmother cared for the son. He did not ask the mother to look after their son on those two days, but he did inform the mother of the suspension.

105Because of the medication change, the father hopes that there will be improvement with the behavioral issues.

106The son also has a new Individual Education Plan (IEP) with the school.

107It was corrected that the son was last at the Children’s Centre in 2025, but a new request is pending. The counsellor said that there was nothing further to offer until the parents sorted their issues out.

108With respect to the psychological assessment report from December 2025, this was something that both parents eventually agreed to, but the mother initially did not follow up with discussing with the doctor the reasons for his recommendation that the testing be done.

109The father also noted lack of consistently by the mother in administering medication on school days or for events.

110He was asked about his Form 35.1 – his Affidavit (decision-making responsibility, parenting time, contact) and his plan, should he have sole parenting. He stated:

I still firmly believe that [the child] will fully benefit from both parents being in his life equally, however, if the Applicant still decides to relocate, the following is my proposed plan; alternating March Break, alternating Easter & Thanksgiving, shared Christmas and New Years break each year, shared summer holidays to be agreed upon each year in advance, shared statutory, provincial holidays and PA days agreed upon at the beginning of each year. (To allow the father to have Long weekend time throughout the year with both of his children). Other holidays as agreed upon between the parties. Extensive communication through social media and various online platforms.

111He testified about his son’s five friends. Much of the interaction is via video games.

112He agreed that his son has some challenges at school and has been bullied predominantly since grade three or four. While the mother has proposed a move to other schools to avoid the bullying, the father believes that bullying would be inevitable at any school.

113He said that he has a large family in Thunder Bay consisting of his mother, his sister, her husband and their two children, and many aunts, uncles, and cousins. They have family dinners at his mother’s on average twice per month.

114In re-examination, he stated that changing schools would cause too much unpredictability for their son. At present, he has familiar staff and a familiar layout. He said that their son strives on consistency.

115He would make modifications to the proposed parenting time for more parenting time for the mother as it will be hard for their son regardless of the decision. He would propose that each parent have one month in the summer.

Paternal Grandmother’s Affidavit

116She said that she has been involved in the grandson’s life since birth and interacts and communicates with him regularly. She moved from outside Thunder Bay to Thunder Bay in 2015 to be closer to him and her other grandchildren, and to provide support when needed.

117She deposed that her grandson has a large extended family in Thunder Bay of about 60 plus relatives.⁸ She said that she has attempted to instill a large emphasis on her grandson connecting, interacting with, and learning from his relatives including his great uncles, great aunts and his great grandmother.

118She said that her grandson attends many family dinners and celebrations with his extended family and has observed the “excitement and joy” her grandson has when interacting with his extended family.

119During COVID, she supported her grandson with this education regardless of which parent had the grandson in their care.

120From October 2025 until April 10, 2026, her grandson had an exemption allowing her to leave two hours early each day. She said that she often picked him up and spent time with her grandson until either parent was able to pick him up.

121When the father is unable to pick up her grandson from school, she fills in and she is relied upon for emergencies. When the father had surgery in March of 2026, he and his two sons stayed with her when he recovered.

Cross-examination of the Paternal Grandmother

122In cross-examination, the paternal grandmother said that her grandson had the exemption from school for his behavioral issues. She agreed that, at times, school is difficult for her grandson. She said that he talks about bullying occasionally but that he is always happy and smiling when she picks him up from school.

123She hosts family dinners every holiday and impromptu family dinners every couple of weeks, usually when her grandson is with his father.

124She said that her grandson was very close to his paternal great grandmother until she passed away recently and he was also very close to a great uncle until he passed away.

125Her son is very close to his aunts, uncles and cousins.

126Last weekend she had all four of her grandchildren with her and they went to the park and had dinner. She said that the grandchildren spend quite a bit of time together.

Report of the OCL

127Ms. Filipovic filed a Request to Admit based on the child’s view and preferences.

128Ms. Filipovic met with both parents separately before meeting with the child. She met with the child privately, separate and apart from his parents, at her office and at his school.

129She reported the child’s views and preferences as follows:⁹

(i) [the child] reports that his parents currently make decisions together about him and he has no issue with this arrangement. He believes that his views and preferences should be considered.

(ii) [the child] has had no issues with the current alternating week care arrangement between his Mom and Dad. He would like this arrangement to continue but he reported that he would like the opportunity to participate in special trips/occasions while with either parent. He says that this doesn't always happen and he then misses out.

(iii) [the child] is unaware of any communication issues between the Mother and his Father.

(iv) [the child] has knowledge that his Mom has wanted to move from Thunder Bay to Sudbury for a very long time. [the child] doesn't understand why his Mom is saying that they are moving. His Mother's response to his enquiries on why they have to move away from Thunder Bay is that "it is for his safety". [the child] didn't want to elaborate further and reported that he doesn't like to discuss the proposed move to Sudbury. [the child] reported too much "pressure on him" about the move and confirmed it creates "stress" for him. [the child] wants both his Mom and Dad to stay in Thunder Bay. [the child] wants his Dad to move to Sudbury so that things can stay the same. [the child] loves both his Mom and Dad. [the child] wants both his Mom and Dad to be happy.

(v) [the child] reports that he doesn't like his current school at all but no alternative in Thunder Bay has been proposed to him and it wouldn't make a difference any how. [the child]'s view is that his Father won't let him change schools.

(vi) [the child] reported that he has friends in Thunder Bay that he has met through school but he has lost friends at school. [the child] gave the example of friend, a boy named …., who moved to the country. [the child] had no interest in moving to the same school as ….

(vii) [the child] reported that his relationship with his "girlfriend" at school ended. In his view, this breakup created issues with other children at school and affected his friend group. [the child] reported that both of his parents made him feel better about himself after this relationship ended.

(viii) [the child] understands that his parents want him to make friends. [the child] prefers to connect and makes friends through his gaming on X-box which is frustrated by the time limits his parents place on his use of his X-box. This is further complicated by his inability to engage in other video gaming activities because of the limitations of the X-box. [the child] confirmed that his current ability to engage in these activities would improve with a laptop or computer of his own.

(ix) [the child] made it clear that he would like a laptop computer like the other children in his class and would like OCL agent counsel to advocate on his behalf for one. [the child] reported that other children struggling with school have their own laptops and [the child] believes that a laptop will help him with the issues he is having with his schooling and the difficulties that he faces with his ADHD. He provided an example of his spelling problems. [the child] is well aware of his ADHD.

(x) [the child] wants more say in what he does at school. In his view, he "is forced" to take courses and/or do activities at school that he has no interest in. The examples he provided were culinary and a curling field trip. [the child] "hates" culinary. [the child] is "forced" to take culinary by his Father because according to his understanding, his Father says he needs to learn how to cook. It is [the child]'s position that he will learn to cook later in life.

(xi) While [the child]'s views on his current school are not positive which he acknowledges, he has no personal knowledge of the schools that would be available to him in Sudbury because he hasn't visited any of them. [the child] confirms that his view of school is negative and that he "doesn't like school" - he is not accepting that his school experience would be better or any different in Sudbury. The information [the child] has been provided about the schools in Sudbury is based on what he has been told by his Mother.

(xii) [the child] reported issues with the healthcare professionals that he has been involved with at his current school and previously through the Children's Center. In particular, his view of a recent encounter with the school psychologist, … was very negative. This view was based on the actions of the psychologist. [the child] reported that Dr. … came into his classroom and singled him out by standing behind his teacher's desk and staring at him and then leaving. By contrast, [the child]'s view of his paediatrician, Dr. … is very positive and he really likes Dr. ….

(xiii) [the child] expressed interest in taking things apart and turning/building/designing them into other things/creations which is currently supported by both his Mom and Dad.

(xiv) [the child] is in involved in a bowling league (Mario Bowling League) in Thunder Bay which he likes and he would like to continue this activity. [the child] confirmed that he doesn't really like sport activities. He gave the example of hockey which he confirmed that his younger paternal step-brother, … was involved in.

(xv) [the child] reported no issues with his paternal stepbrother … and did not wish to discuss …. He confirmed that this relationship is both positive and negative at times, i.e. "they get a long" but they also "don't get along". He stated that … also has ADHD but it isn't "as bad as his".

(xvi) [the child] reported that he likes spending time with his paternal relatives in Thunder Bay, Ontario particularly his two cousins, one who is older than him and one that is younger than him. He would like to see his cousins more. He confirmed that he sees his paternal grandmother a lot.

(xvii) [the child] wants to be treated like an individual with choices and have his beliefs accepted and valued. The example he provided was that it is should be his choice to believe in the Easter Bunny or not; his choice not to believe in the Easter Bunny shouldn't be used against him. [the child] maintains that he is obligated to believe in the Easter Bunny by his paternal grandmother because of his little brother, … -- if he doesn't say he believes in the Easter Bunny, according to his paternal grandmother, then he will not receive Easter presents.

(xviii) [the child] reported a positive relationship with his maternal grandmother and confirmed that he has been to Science North with his maternal grandmother in British Columbia his last contact with her was last August. [the child]'s Mother took him to Science North recently and he liked it. [the child] confirmed that he knows that there is a Science North coming to Thunder Bay but it hasn't been built yet.

(xix) [the child] confirmed that in Sudbury, … (his stepfather) has family in Sudbury, but his Mother has no relatives in Sudbury. [the child] confirmed that [his stepfather]’s one son … lives with him, …and his Mom in Thunder Bay. [the child] is not close to … because …

(xx) [the child] discussed his relationship with his stepfather, .. other two children (… and …) that live in Sault Ste. Marie with their mother. The relationship between [the child] and … and … is problematic to [the child]. When asked to elaborate [the child]'s issues were with the treatment he receives versus the treatment that his step siblings … and … receive from his Mother and stepfather, …. It is [the child]'s view that … and …receive special treatment and [the child] is tired of not being treated equally. [the child]’s view is that he is promised things by his Mom and … and then doesn't get them but when … and … are promised things - they always get them. [the child]'s position is that he should receive equal and fair treatment equivalent to … and …. [the child] reported that he was so "frustrated" by this unequal treatment and it makes him "so angry" . [the child] stated that the treatment he receives is "unfair" and "outrageous".

(xxi) [the child] stated that his Mother and [his stepfather] are promising him things if he moves to Sudbury but [the child] doesn't believe them.

(xxii) [the child] reported that his Mother has pets (one cat and two dogs) and [the child] had another dog of his own, "Archer" but his Mother gave Archer away because of the dog's behaviour; [the child] is still upset that Archer was given away. [the child] says his Father is not allowed to have pets where he lives.

(xxiii) [the child] wants assurances that whatever happens, [the child]'s "stuff follows [the child], e. g. "stuff in his room at Dad's goes with him and same if opposite".

130Ms. Filipovic advised that the child was consistent in his presentation of information and that he is a “nice young boy who presents well.” She described him as a “good kid” and said that the “parents have done a good job.”

Positions of the Parties

The Mother

131The applicant mother seeks an order permitting her to relocate the child to Sudbury and that the child reside primarily with her in Sudbury.

132She seeks an order that the father have parenting time with the child:

a. every long weekend;

b. other regular weekends as agreed by the parties

c. every March break from Saturday after school ends to the following Sunday;

d. the month of July;

e. “virtual” parenting time twice per week subject to the child’s availability;

f. other “virtual”, telephone and email communication at all reasonable times; and

g. that the father and mother share the two-week Christmas holiday equally.

The Father

133The father seeks an order that the child is to remain in Thunder Bay and reside primarily with him.

134The father also seeks guideline child support from the date of the mother’s move.

135He seeks an order that the mother have parenting time with the child:

a. every March break from Saturday after school ends to the following Sunday;

b. July 1 until July 31 each year;

c. one long weekend each month when the child shall travel to Sudbury to be in the mother’s care, except that the father may request that he have the son in his care for the long weekend in one month;

d. a second weekend with the mother each month, except March, as agreed;

e. scheduled “virtual” parenting time twice weekly on an agreed schedule subject to the child’s activities; and

f. other unscheduled parenting time as agreed.

136The father also seeks an order for ongoing financial disclosure by May 1 each year.

137In submissions, both counsel relied upon the factors as set out in the Divorce Act¹⁰ and discussed in the cases below.

The Law

138The Divorce Act provides that, in making a parenting order,¹¹ the court shall take in consideration only the best interests of the child¹² and sets out factors to be considered.¹³

139Additional factors are to be considered when a parent intends to undertake a relocation.¹⁴

140Relocation means a change in the place of residence of a child that is likely to have a significant impact on the child’s relationship with a person who has parenting time or decision-making responsibility in respect of that child.¹⁵

Best Interests

141The “best interest” directive and factors are set out below:

Best interests of child

16 (1) The court shall take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage in making a parenting order or a contact order.

Primary consideration

(2) When considering the factors referred to in subsection (3), the court shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.

Factors to be considered

(3) In determining the best interests of the child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, including

(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 spouse, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life;

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

(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 cooperate, 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 cooperate 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.

Factors relating to family violence

(4) In considering the impact of any family violence under paragraph (3)(j), the court shall take the following into account:

(a) the nature, seriousness and frequency of the family violence and when it occurred;

(b) whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in relation to a family member;

(c) whether the family violence is directed toward the child or whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence;

(d) the physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm to the child;

(e) any compromise to the safety of the child or other family member;

(f) whether the family violence causes the child or other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person;

(g) any steps taken by the person engaging in the family violence to prevent further family violence from occurring and improve their ability to care for and meet the needs of the child; and

(h) any other relevant factor.

Past conduct

(5) In determining what is in the best interests of the child, the court shall not take into consideration the past conduct of any person unless the conduct is relevant to the exercise of their parenting time, decision-making responsibility or contact with the child under a contact order.

Parenting time consistent with best interests of child

(6) In allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child.

Best Interest Additional Factors on Relocation

142The additional factors to be considered in an application for relocation are:

Best interests of child — additional factors to be considered

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.

Factor not to be considered

(2) In deciding whether to authorize a relocation of the child, the court shall not consider, if the child’s relocation was prohibited, whether the person who intends to relocate the child would relocate without the child or not relocate.

The Onus

143In cases when there is an agreement that that child spends substantially equal time in the care of each party, “the party who intends to relocate the child has the burden of proving that the relocation would be in the best interests of the child.”¹⁶

144Burden of proof is determined by actual parenting time, not trends or anticipated changes.¹⁷

Reasons for Relocating (s. 16.92(1)(a))

145In Barendregt v. Grebliunas,¹⁸ the Supreme Court of Canda said this about the reasons for relocation:

[128] Indeed, isolating the custodial parent’s reasons for the move from the broad, individualized inquiry of the child’s best interests has frequently proven impractical. There will often be a connection between the expected benefits of the move for the child and the relocating parent’s reasons for proposing the move in the first place. Relocation for financial reasons, for instance, will clearly carry implications for a child’s material welfare. Considering the parent’s reasons for moving can be relevant, and even necessary, to assess the merits of a relocation application.

[129] That said, the court should avoid casting judgment on a parent’s reasons for moving. A moving parent need not prove the move is justified. And a lack of a compelling reason for the move, in and of itself, should not count against a parent, unless it reflects adversely on a parent’s ability to meet the needs of the child: Ligate v. Richardson (1997), 1997 CanLII 650 (ON CA), 34 O.R. (3d) 423 (C.A.), at p. 434.

Impact on the Child (s. 16.92(1)(b))

146Impact on the child’s meaningful relationships with the other parent, half-siblings, extended family and friends may outweigh the benefits of relocation in a move that requires a two-and-a-half-hour to three-and -a-half-hour travel distance.¹⁹

Assessing the Weight to Give to a Child’s Wishes

147In Decaen v. Decaen,²⁰ the Court of Appeal for Ontario stated that the following factors are relevant:

a. Whether the parents are able to provide adequate care;

b. How clear and unambivalent the wishes are;

c. How informed the expression is;

d. The age of the child;

e. The child’s maturity level;

f. The strength of the wish;

g. How long they have expressed their preference;

h. The practicalities of the situation;

i. Parental influence;

j. Overall context; and

k. The circumstances of the preference from the child’s point of view.

Analysis and Disposition

148In Barendregt, the Supreme Court of Canada stated:

[8] Determining the best interests of the child is a heavy responsibility, with profound impacts on children, families and society. In many cases, the answer is difficult — the court must choose between competing and often compelling visions of how to best advance the needs and interests of the child. The challenge is even greater in mobility cases. Geographic distance reduces flexibility, disrupts established patterns, and inevitably impacts the relationship between a parent and a child. The forward-looking nature of relocation cases requires judges to craft a disposition at a fixed point in time that is both sensitive to that child’s present circumstances and can withstand the test of time and adversity.

[9] The law relating to the best interests of the child has long emphasized the need for individualized and discretionary decision making. But children also need predictability and certainty. To balance these competing interests, the law provides a framework and factors to structure a judge’s discretion. This case calls on the Court to examine how some of those considerations apply in mobility cases. In particular, I clarify that a moving parent’s reasons for relocation and the “maximum contact factor” are relevant only to the extent they bear upon the best interests of the child; a parent’s testimony about whether they will move regardless of the outcome of the relocation application should not be considered … [Emphasis added.]

149As my colleague Tranquilli J. observed in another case, “the outcome of this trial will have a profound impact on the family dynamic and weighs heavily upon the conscience of this court.”²¹

150As instructed, I will review the “Best Interest” factors generally, and those applicable to relocation.

The “Best Interest” Factors to be Considered (s. 16(3))

a) The child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability

151I am satisfied that the child’s needs are adequately addressed by both parents and that, at his age and state of development, the only real issues are related to the behavioral issues arising from his ADHD and anxiety.

152I accept the father’s evidence that their son thrives on consistency and, therefore, the need for stability is an important factor to consider.

153In this case, stability is assessed in terms of close family and other personal relationships, schooling, and treatment team.

154With respect to family, he has shared parenting with both parents his entire life and has been “week-on/week-off” since about 2019. He has a brother who is four years younger, and half of his time is spent with his father and brother. He has cousins in Thunder Bay that he has grown up with. He has a grandmother in Thunder Bay who has been very involved with him. He has a large extended family in Thunder Bay and some, but not many, friends. According to the OCL report, the child likes spending time with his paternal relatives in Thunder Bay, particularly his two cousins who are close in age. He confirmed that he sees his paternal grandmother a lot.

155He would really know no-one in Sudbury beyond his mother and her new partner. He would have cousins in Sudbury, but he only met them for the first time during March break this year. Sudbury would be very much a fresh start. He would be somewhat closer to the mother’s new partner’s children, but still not in the same city. His relationship with his maternal grandmother would be unchanged as she would not live in either Sudbury or Thunder Bay. He could still visit her in British Columbia subject to the agreement of the parents.

156The son has been at the same school since senior kindergarten. As the father indicated, there are numerous teachers and educational assistants at his school who are familiar with and attuned to his needs. He has had the benefit of an IEP which may continue as required.

157Although the mother believes that a change in schools would benefit their son – “a scholastic change that would place him in a new peer group, and facilitate him being able to develop friendships that would benefit his life” – she said this in her January 2026 email to the father:

…I believe that the school is and has been doing everything possible to support [their son]. The changes that have been made thus far have demonstrated significant and positive results. I don’t think we need to make changes to something that has been positively working. There have not been any issues with [their son] and I believe the support plan that is currently implemented is working. I don’t feel we should be making any changes unless there is a need or cause for intervention.

158As the father observed, their son has a strong network of medical and mental health professionals already established in Thunder Bay including a family doctor, pediatrician, school mental health nurse, Lakehead District School Board psychologist, psychologist at Harmony Health, professional supports at The Children's Centre, and professional supports at Thunder Bay Counselling. According to the OCL report, the child does not like the school psychologist, but really likes his paediatrician.

159One of the benefits in the move to Sudbury stated by the mother was “superior access to professionals who would be able to provide additional therapeutic supports for [the child]”. The mother’s new partner stated that the son would benefit from different specialists and that there is less of a wait time. No independent evidence was led to support any of these statements.

160This factor, the child’s needs, and particularly the child’s need for stability, does not favour relocation.

b) The nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each spouse, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life

161I am satisfied that that the child has a strong bond and relationship with both parents.

162I am also satisfied that the child has a strong and important relationship with his “little brother” who he is with every other week. The mother acknowledges the importance of this relationship as she has supported and fostered it by having both boys together with her on “her time”.

163I have already addressed the role of the paternal grandmother in Thunder Bay, and I note that she stresses the importance of involving her grandson in the large extended family through dinners and other gatherings.

164Their son has two cousins in Thunder Bay whom he has known all his life, an aunt and uncle, and many other great uncles, aunts and cousins in Thunder Bay.

165The mother’s new partner has been involved in the son’s life for about three years²² since his move to Thunder Bay, and I do not dispute his assertion that they have a close relationship.

166The son has a sporadic relationship with the new partner’s other children which according to the OCL report is “problematic”.

167The son has not established a relationship with his cousins in Sudbury.

168His relationship with his maternal grandmother in unaffected by the move.

169It does not appear that the son has a significant relationship, yet, with his maternal aunt and uncle, but they are present in Thunder Bay now.

170This factor, the nature and strength of relationships, does not favour relocation.

c) Each spouse’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other spouse

171Based on the proposal put forward by each parent, I am satisfied that each parent is willing to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent, although I did not receive evidence or submissions about how the cost of transportation would be allocated should a relocation occur.

172This factor is, therefore, neutral for relocation.

d) The history of care of the child

173The child has been in an equal shared parenting relationship for basically his entire life. He has been in a stable “week-on/week-off” pattern once he started school.

174I am satisfied that both parents are concerned with and active with the child’s schooling and medical issues, although I acknowledge that there is some conflict expressed by each party over some of the choices and the speed with which certain choices are made. However, as the history of care demonstrates, the parents follow treatment recommendations made to benefit their son.

175I note that the paternal grandmother has had a role as a care giver in Thunder Bay. The maternal grandmother’s role has been primarily as a once-a-year holiday caregiver.

176According to the OCL report, the child perceives that the parents make decisions together about him and that he has “no issues” with the current alternating week care arrangement which he would like to continue.

177This factor, the history of care, is neutral to not favouring relocation.

178As noted, the child has received care from a number of treatment providers in Thunder Bay during his young life, starting with his ADHD diagnosis at the age of seven.

179If care is expanded to include care provided by the treatment team in Thunder Bay, then this factor does not favour relocation.

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

180In assessing the weight to be given to the child’s views and preferences, I have considered the factors set out in Decaen.

181In this case, both parents can provide adequate care. The wishes expressed by the child are, for the most part, relatively clear and unambiguous. The expression of those wishes appears informed. At age 12 ½, the child appears old enough to express his wishes. I note Ms. Filipovic’s impression that the child was consistent in his presentation. With respect to maturity level, Ms. Filipovic described him as a “nice young boy who presents well” and noted that the “parents have done a good job”. I take this as an endorsement of his maturity level. The strength of the views and preferences appears strong. I do not know how long these views and preferences have been held. There is nothing that renders the child’s wishes impracticable. There does not appear to be any parental influence. The views and preferences are appropriate in the “overall context”.

182In short, these views and preferences were presented to the Court by an experienced lawyer representing the OCL as requested by the Court, and I see no reason for not accepting these views and presences as expressed by Ms. Filipovic on behalf of the OCL.

183Key views and preferences include:

• “no issues with current alternating week care arrangement”;

• “doesn’t understand why his Mom is saying that they are moving”;

• move “creates ‘stress’ for him”;

• “wants both his Mom and Dad to stay in Thunder Bay”;

• “wants Dad to move to Sudbury so that things can stay the same”;

• “loves both his Mom and Dad”;

• “wants both his Mom and Dad to be happy”; and

• “likes spending time with his paternal relatives in Thunder Bay, particularly his two cousins, one who is older than him and one that is younger than him. He would like to see his cousins more. He confirmed that he sees his paternal grandmother a lot”.

184Although the child expresses a view that he wants his mother to stay in Thunder Bay or he wants his father to move to Sudbury, that is not a view in favour of relocation. It is a view and preference that he wishes the parents to be together.

185I note that the mother’s evidence about her son’s views and preferences is in direct contradiction to the views and preferences as expressed by the child. I place greater weight on the views and preferences as expressed by the OCL than on the views expressed by the mother.

186This factor, the child’s views and preferences, does not favour relocation.

f) The child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage

187The only evidence I heard relating to this factor was the mother’s interest in increasing her connection to her Caribbean culture and sharing this connection with her son. Her evidence was that she has attended gatherings in Thunder Bay for Black History Month and Caribbean festivals. Moving to Sudbury would put her closer to Toronto (400 km), making it easier for her to attend Caribana in Toronto. She also says that she has extended family in Toronto and Barrie that are connected to her Caribbean heritage.

188As she was able to pursue this to some extent in Thunder Bay, this factor, cultural heritage, only slightly favours relocation.

g) Any plans for the child’s care

189There was no difference in plans for the child’s care other than the status quo would continue. The advantage of remaining in Thunder Bay is the presence of an established health care team. A new team would have to be assembled in Sudbury.

190This factor, plan for child’s care, is neutral, but for the established care team which has already been considered.

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

191As discussed, I am satisfied that both parents are able and willing to care for and meet the needs of the child.

192This factor is neutral.

i) The ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child

193I am satisfied that there have been issues with communication. Select emails were introduced in which the father used language that he acknowledged as inappropriate. His evidence was that the conflict increased after the mother announced her intention to move in 2022.

194Nevertheless, the parents have been communicating and co-operating for over eleven years and, as Ms. Filipovic noted, they have “done a good job”.

195From their son’s perspective, his parents make decisions about him together.

196This factor, the ability and willingness of the parents to communicate and cooperate, is neutral.

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

197As noted, there has been abusive language and some evidence of threats of violence from the mother’s new partner which were not substantiated. Those allegations came from the child which is concerning. The mother’s new partner said that the child has a “healthy fear” of him and his explanation is that the child must have explained something “that came out the wrong way”. He said that he has told the child that he would never hurt his father.

198There is one incident during which the mother thought “for a few seconds” that the father was going to run her over. The father was not cross-examined about that, and little weight is therefore given to this alleged incident.

199This factor is neutral.

i. The ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child

200Despite the foregoing, I am satisfied that both parents are able and willing to care for and meet the needs of the child.

201This factor is also neutral.

ii. The appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to cooperate on issues affecting the child

202An order is not required.

k) Any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition, or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child

203There are no civil or criminal proceedings, or conditions involving the parties.

Additional Factors to be Considered on Relocation (s. 16.92(1))

a) The reasons for the relocation

204As stated in Barendregt, a moving parent’s reasons for relocation “are relevant only to the extent they bear upon the best interests of the child.”²³

205As the Supreme Court of Canada stated, the Court should also consider whether there is a connection between the reason for the move and “the expected benefits of the move for the child.”²⁴

206However, a lack of a compelling reason for the move, in and of itself, should not count against a parent unless it reflects adversely on the parent’s ability to meet the needs of the child.²⁵

207The mother’s reasons for moving include:

a. superior access to therapeutic professionals;

b. a school change would place their son in a new peer group and facilitate new friendships;

c. improved access to extracurricular activities;

d. furthering the relationship with her new partner’s children in Sault Ste. Marie;

e. improved economic circumstances for household, particularly her career; and

f. reduction in conflict between the parents.

208There is little evidence to support the mother’s claim that there is superior access to therapeutic professionals. There is no evidence to support the new partner’s assertion that the child would benefit from different specialists and that there is less of a wait time in Sudbury.

209That a school change would facilitate new friendships is speculative.

210One of the child’s activities is bowling which he does in Thunder Bay weekly. There is no specific evidence of enhanced activities in Sudbury.

211While a move would potentially allow the child to further a relationship with the mother’s new partner’s children, the distance form Sudbury to Sault Ste. Marie is 300 km or over three hours driving time. The new partner’s plan is to travel there every second weekend – that is six hours in total if he intends to pick up his children and take them back to Sudbury for each trip, to and from.

212With respect to improved economic circumstances, that is, at this point, speculative. The mother’s evidence is that she would be in the same position, with no increase in income after a move to Sudbury, but would have greater chances of advancement. Her new partner said that he would have more job security in Sudbury, but admitted that he has no concerns with job security in Thunder Bay.

213The conflict between the parents appears to have escalated since the mother announced the move. This is a reason that does not bear directly, although it may bear indirectly, upon the best interests of the child.

214The expected benefits to the child are speculative. However, a lack of compelling reasons should not count against the parent unless it reflects adversely upon the parent’s ability to meet the needs of the child. It does not.

215As such, this factor is, at best, neutral.

b) The impact of the relocation on the child

216As noted in Tass, impact on the child’s meaningful relationship with the other parent, a half-sibling, and extended family may outweigh the benefits of relocation. Tass involved a relocation that required a two-and-one half hour to three-and-one half hour drive.

217The relocation here involves an eleven-hour drive. Accordingly, there would be a significant impact on the child’s meaningful relationships with his father, his half-brother, his paternal grandmother, his cousins, his paternal and maternal aunt and uncle, and his paternal great aunts and uncles even with the exchanges as proposed by air.

218As noted, the child has an extensive “care” group in Thunder Bay with whom the family has been working with for years.

219This factor, impact on the child, does not favour relocation.

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

220As the parenting time is equally shared and the level of involvement of each parent is similar, this factor is neutral.

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

221This factor is neutral.

e) The existence of an order, arbitral award, or agreement that specifies the geographic area in which the child is to reside

222The separation agreement provided that neither party could change the residence of the child from Thunder Bay without the prior written consent of the other party or a court order. Although the father was cross-examined about whether he understood “material change”, no argument of material change was made. This agreement was made knowingly, with legal advice, eleven years ago.

223This factor is, at best, neutral.

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

224The mother’s proposal for the exercise of parenting varied from her affidavit to her cross-examination. In her affidavit she referenced direct flights from Sudbury to Thunder Bay and, in cross-examination she stated that their son would be taken to Toronto and would then fly to Thunder Bay – so on each exchange that would be a four-hour drive each way in addition to the flight. There was no information given about how the costs of these exchanges would be borne.

225No change in decision making was sought and there was no information from the mother on how decision making would be dealt with upon relocation.

226Because of this missing information, this factor is, at best, neutral.

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

227This factor is neutral. Both parents have complied with their obligations. I note that the financial issues were resolved with no arrears of child support owing as of May 1, 2026. One of the best predictors of the future is past performance, and I am satisfied that both parents would likely comply with any future orders and their future legal obligations.

228This factor is neutral.

“Best Interests” – Conclusion

229As the party seeking relocation, the mother has the burden of proving that relocation would be in the best interests of the child.

230My findings with respect to the best interest factors are:

Section 16(3)

a. child’s needs – does not favour relocation;

b. child’s relationships – does not favour relocation;

c. parent’s willingness to support – neutral

d. history of care – neutral to does not favour relocation;

e. child’s views and preferences – does not favour relocation;

f. cultural heritage – slightly favours relocation;

g. plans for care – neutral;

h. parent’s ability and willingness to care – neutral;

i. ability of parents to communicate and cooperate – neutral;

j. family violence and impact – neutral;

Section 16.92(1)

a. reasons for relocation – at best, neutral;

b. impact of relocation on child – does not favour relocation;

c. amount of parenting time – neutral;

d. compliance with law – neutral;

e. order or agreement – at best, neutral;

f. reasonable of proposal to vary parenting time, decision-making, contact – at best, neutral;

g. compliance and future compliance with parenting orders – neutral.

231The mother has not proven that relocation would be in the best interests of the child when these factors are assessed and weighed collectively.

232The mother’s application for an order permitting the child to relocate the child to Sudbury is dismissed.

233With respect to the mother’s parenting time and contact with the child, insufficient information was given to allow me to make a parenting time order as there were no submissions about how the cost of the son’s transportation would be allocated. Other issues to be addressed include time with the maternal grandmother. Failing agreement, the parties may return before me for further submissions.

234This order will result in a change in child support with the mother obligated to pay child support to the father. As there were child support issues that were resolved during the trial, I do not know the basis upon which those issues were resolved. Therefore, I do not have income amounts to determine child support payable. Failing agreement, the parties are to return before me for further submissions.

235The parties are to exchange income tax returns and notice of assessments and other required information by June 1 of each year for adjustment of child support.

236With respect to costs, if not resolved, the party seeking costs shall deliver costs submissions limited to five pages plus costs outline within 21 days following the release of this decision. Responding submissions, subject to the same limits, shall be delivered within 10 days thereafter.

237The parties may seek a date from the trial coordinator to fix a date for submissions on the issues I have identified or any other issue to be dealt with.

238I wish to acknowledge the assistance of the Office of the Children’s lawyer, and particularly Ms. Filipovic for her comprehensive, clear, and candid comments. I know that the resources of the OCL are limited, but this Court appreciates the assistance of the Office whenever it available.

The Hon. Mr. Justice W. D. Newton, R.S.J.

Footnotes

1. 1To protect the privacy of the parties and the child, non-specific identifiers will be used throughout.
2. 2The distance from Thunder Bay to Sudbury is 1004 km or 11 hours driving time.
3. 3The separation agreement provided that neither party could change the residence of the child from Thunder Bay without the prior written consent of the other party or a court order.
4. 4The distance from Sudbury to Toronto is 400 km, or 4 hours of driving time.
5. 5The distance from Sudbury to Sault Ste. Marie is 309 km or 3.5 hours driving time.
6. 6So, minimum 3 to 6+ hour transfer drive.
7. 7The words in quotations are words from the Request to Admit and not necessarily the words of the child.
8. 8The father’s Form 35.1 lists his family supports – in addition to his mother, his sister and her husband with her two children, there are ten aunts and uncles, as well as many cousins, with their partners and families all residing in Thunder Bay.
9. 9Names have been removed to maintain confidentiality and privacy.
10. 10R.S.C. 1985, c. 3.
11. 11An order providing for the exercise of parenting time or decision-making responsibility in respect of any child of the marriage made under s. 16.1(1) of the Divorce Act.
12. 12Divorce Act, s. 16(1).
13. 13Divorce Act, s. 16(3).
14. 14Divorce Act, s. 16.92(1).
15. 15Divorce Act, s. 2(1).
16. 16Divorce Act, s. 16.93(1).
17. 17Shipton v. Shipton, 2024 ONCA 624, at paras. 71-73.
18. 182022 SCC 22, at paras. 128-129 (“Barendregt”).
19. 19Tass v. Jackson, 2023 ONSC 6564, at paras. 70-74 (“Tass”). This case involved a proposed move from Oakville to Sarnia.
20. 202013 ONCA 218, at para. 42 (“Decaen”).
21. 21LaBonte v. Godin, 2023 ONSC 2767, at para. 10.
22. 22The mother said her new partner moved in with her in August 2022. He says he moved to Thunder Bay in May 2023.
23. 23Barendregt, at para. 9.
24. 24Barendregt, at para. 128.
25. 25Barendregt, at para. 129.