CITATION: T.B. v. S.T., 2026 ONSC 4698
COURT FILE NO.: FC-25-02
DATE: 20260813
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
TB
Applicant
– and –
ST
Respondent
Ralph Lee, for the Applicant
Alex Ferguson, for the Respondent
HEARD: April 28, 29 and 30, 2026
REASONS FOR DECISION
JUSTICE M. FRASER
Part 1 - Introduction
[1] TB and ST are the mother and father of ZT, who is currently nine years old.
[2] The central issue to be determined following the trial in this proceeding is the parenting arrangement that is in ZT’s best interests.
[3] TB seeks primary care of ZT and requests permission to relocate ZT’s residence to Armstrong, British Columbia (“Armstrong”). She also seeks sole decision‑making authority.
[4] ST opposes TB’s request to relocate ZT to Armstrong. He requests an order for shared parenting time with ZT with joint decision‑making authority.
Part 2 – Relevant Background Facts
[5] The parties were in a common‑law relationship from 2016 to 2024. TB is presently 50 years old, and ST is presently 55 years old.
[6] The parties have three children together: a son, NT, born in October 2008, now 17 years old; a son, JT, born in August 2010, now 15 years old; and a daughter, ZT, born in October 2016, now 9 years old.
[7] TB also has two adult sons from a prior relationship, aged 23 and 24, who live independently.
[8] The parties began living together in 2007 in Oshawa, Ontario. Their relationship was “on and off again” during the early years, characterized by periods of separation followed by reconciliation.
[9] Both parties acknowledge that they struggled with addiction during the early years of their relationship. Prior to ZT’s birth, their addiction issues resulted in the involvement of the Children’s Aid Society, which apprehended NT and JT. NT and JT were placed in the care of their paternal grandparents. Both parties were required to participate in rehabilitation programs. TB recalls completing a parenting program, a program for victims of sexual violence, a Partner Assault Response program, and an anger management program.
[10] NT and JT were returned to TB’s care when JT was one year old. The parties were not together at that time. ST was permitted parenting time with NT and JT in TB’s discretion.
[11] In 2019, the parties were reconciled and they moved into ST’s parents’ home, which ST later inherited upon his parents’ passing. That home was subsequently sold when the parties decided to relocate to Madawaska in 2020. TB and ST purchased the property located at 25231 Highway 60, Madawaska (the “Madawaska property”). The property, formerly the community firehall, was acquired as a “fixer-upper.” Upon purchase, it lacked both running water and heat.
[12] ST, NT, and JT slept in a single large room, which was the only bedroom, while TB and ZT slept in the main living area.
[13] TB was the children’s primary caregiver. She did not work outside the home and was responsible for the family’s domestic duties, including caring for the children, preparing meals, and managing household tasks such as laundry. TB also ensured the children were enrolled in and attended school, and that their medical and dental needs were addressed.
[14] Following their move to Madawaska, ST obtained full-time employment with a cleaning company. He continues to work for this company.
[15] TB currently receives benefits from the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”). Her eligibility to receive ODSP is, according to TB, due to post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. TB maintains that many of her physical and emotional health issues stem, at least in part, from her relationship with ST.
[16] TB alleges that she was subjected to both physical and emotional abuse by ST during their relationship. She claims that he assaulted her on multiple occasions, including by punching her in the face, choking her, kicking her, pushing her as she passed by, and throwing beer in her face.
[17] TB asserts that ST’s alcohol consumption was a significant issue in the relationship, describing him as an alcoholic. She asserts that ST’s drinking is a continuing concern. According to TB, ST would consume between six and twelve beers daily. She states that he would drink after returning home from work and continue drinking late into the night. TB also alleges that ST spent his income on alcohol, resulting in household bills frequently going unpaid.
[18] The parties separated in January 2024 following an incident in which TB alleges ST physically assaulted her. ZT was present when this assault occurred. ST was subsequently charged with assault and entered a guilty plea. A no-contact order remains in effect between the parties.
[19] Following the separation, all three children initially remained in TB’s care and TB continued to reside at the Madawaska property.
[20] There was initially a no-contact order between ST and ZT as a result of the charges laid against ST at the time of their separation. This no-contact order was amended approximately six months later to permit contact between ST and ZT.
[21] Approximately nine months after the charges were laid, visits between ZT and ST commenced. Regular parenting time between ZT and ST has occurred since October 2024 without incident. The informal arrangement which has been in place since that time consists of ZT primarily residing with TB, while ST exercises parenting time that evolved into every-other-weekend visits, generally from Saturday to Sunday. During ZT's time with ST, JT and NT would visit TB, although JT has refused to go for parenting time with TB over the past several months.
[22] The children are of Indigenous heritage through TB. As a result, it is noted that Nigig Nibi Ki-win Gamik Society (“Nigig”), the child and family well-being agency for the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation, have been involved with this family and they have supported the children since the parties moved to Madawaska. Nigig has continued to work with the family to support the children to date.
2.1 - JT
[23] The parties both acknowledge challenges they have experienced with their second child, JT, who was diagnosed with Oppositional Defiance Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
[24] When he was younger, JT saw a doctor in Oshawa for many years to address his behavioural issues.
[25] TB describes JT as frequently behaving inappropriately towards others and asserts that his behaviour has escalated since the family moved to Madawaska. She asserts that he frequently becomes violent and he is known to hit when his feels his “space” is invaded.
[26] TB has ongoing concerns with respect to JT’s inappropriate behaviour and is concerned that ZT not be left unsupervised with JT. She recalls that JT has acted out against his sister on a number of occasions, one time picking her up and slamming her to the ground.
[27] TB described instances where JT had friends over and JT began to punch and hit one of the friends.
[28] On another occasion, the parties sent JT to bible camp (in 2021 or 2022) which held a summer camp their children had gone to. The parties were contacted and needed to retrieve JT at midnight as there was incident in which JT was said to have inappropriately touched a little girl. As a result of this incident TB recalls she brought JT to a program, Intersections, which is an early intervention diversion program for children and youth who are at-risk of becoming involved in the justice system.
[29] TB described another occasion when JT inappropriately choked someone when, she asserts, he was aware of the danger it posed.
[30] TB also recalls witnessing fights between JT and his brother NT which scared her, and spoke of the difficulty of trying to split them up.
[31] After the parties’ separation (January 2024), all three of the parties’ children initially remained resident with TB.
[32] TB recalls that JT’s behavioural issues continued to escalate.
[33] JT was physically aggressive at times within the household generally, including toward ZT. He was increasingly defying TB’s efforts to parent him and impose boundaries on his behaviour. He was leaving the home late at night without permission, and he would stay up late watching pornography on his electronic devices.
[34] With these behaviours escalating, TB felt that JT was becoming too difficult to control. TB’s sister attempted to provide her respite for a week, but this was unsuccessful.
[35] TB’s inability to manage JT’s behaviours, and the ongoing conflict and tension his behaviours caused, culminated to the point that on October 14, 2024, she called the police to bring JT to live at his father’s. JT has been living with ST since that time.
[36] Recently JT has been charged criminally for assault as he is alleged to have slapped his girlfriend in the head while at school.
[37] JT is presently not permitted to attend his high school in person as a result of a further incident in which he was expelled for inappropriate behaviour. He was apparently caught watching pornography and is accused of inappropriately touching a female student. This occurred approximately nine months after he left TB’s care and went to live with ST.
[38] JT has remained out of school for the past year while he continues to reside with ST. ST testified that virtual learning has been offered to JT, but he has not been willing to engage with it.
[39] Due to some of the behavioral issues JT has exhibited, TB is concerned that ZT should not spend parenting time with ST while JT is in ST’s home. TB is concerned because ST leaves the children unsupervised, mostly due to the fact he is away at work.
[40] While TB was initially exercising parenting time with JT and NT while ZT was with ST, JT has decreased his contact with TB to the point that by the time of trial, he was not spending any time with TB at all.
[41] As such, JT continues to reside at the Madawaska property with ST when ZT has her parenting time with ST. This concerns TB.
[42] In order to address what must have been its similar concern, Nigig has purchased video cameras to equip ST’s home so that he can monitor JT’s behaviour when ST is not able to be home and ZT is with him for parenting time.
[43] ST suggests that JT is refusing to spend time with TB because she has been, in his words, calling JT a “sexual predator” in the course of this proceeding. ST admits that he has shared with JT his view that TB is alleging this to be the case.
[44] ST acknowledges that JT has exhibited difficult behaviours in the past. He believes, however, that this is in the past and is no longer a presenting concern.
2.2 - NT
[45] NT resided with TB following the parties’ separation until January 22, 2025, when, according to TB, there was an incident involving fireworks and cleaning his room. TB stated that NT reacted by putting “hands” on her and she called the police. She requested that he go stay with ST and he has resided with ST since.
[46] NT is several credits away from completing his high school diploma but he is struggling in his effort to complete his high school education.
[47] NT continues to spend time with TB and he has expressed a wish to join TB in Armstrong.
2.3 - KM
[48] TB met her boyfriend, KM sometime in 2024. They met through an online dating site. KM lives in Armstrong.
[49] KM has travelled to Ontario several times to spend time with TB and she has travelled to Armstrong on multiple occasions.
[50] TB and KM are engaged to be married. They had intended to marry in October 2025 but that has been postponed pending the resolution of these proceedings.
[51] TB advised ST that she wished to move to Armstrong to move in with KM.
[52] KM is presently 54 years old. He lives in a four-bedroom home in Armstrong. He works at a sawmill business and has worked for this company for the past five years. He maintains he is in the process of purchasing this business to take it over from its present owner. KM also earns additional income constructing pergolas/gazebos as a side business. KM claims to earn a comfortable income. His salary with the sawmill earns him approximately $5,500 per month and he can supplement his income in an amount approximating $10,000 per month building pergolas, although this is seasonal work.
[53] Over and above TB and KM’s desire to live together, KM has a home which would provide ZT with her own bedroom for the first time in her life. If NT wishes to join them, KM is also open to helping NT get established in Armstrong.
[54] If TB comes to live with him, KM is offering to train and employ TB as his bookkeeper. This would accommodate TB’s need to develop a skill set she has not had the opportunity to pursue and would also permit her to work from home and as such accommodate her anxieties.
2.4 - Relocation to Armstrong and return to Ontario
[55] It is not disputed that TB approached ST initially asking him whether he would agree to her moving to Armstrong with ZT to live with KM. ST admits that he agreed to the move initially, provided TB agreed to give him back possession of the Madawaska property.
[56] On the basis of this apparent agreement, TB gave up possession of the Madawaska property to ST.
[57] On July 29, 2025, TB left for Armstrong with ZT believing there was an agreement allowing the move.
[58] However, when ST saw TB packing to move, he sought legal advice and he changed his mind.
[59] ST brought an urgent motion seeking an Order requiring TB to return to Renfrew County with ZT. The urgent motion was heard by Justice Kaufman on August 14, 2025 and TB was ordered to return with ZT from Armstrong.
[60] TB then brought a motion asking that she be permitted to relocate with ZT to Armstrong pending trial. The motion was heard by Justice Doyle on September 24, 2025. Justice Doyle declined to grant the order sought.
[61] TB had nowhere to live upon her return to Ontario as ST had taken over possession of the jointly owned Madawaska property.
[62] TB has been residing at her cousin’s home in Northbrook, Ontario with ZT. The accommodation is temporary as it is small and requires TB and ZT to share a bedroom. ZT therefore attended a new school in Northbrook for the 2025/2026 school year.
[63] ST continues to live at the Madawaska property, presently with NT and JT. Shortly prior to the trial of this matter, TB transferred her legal interest in the Madawaska property to ST.
2.5 - ZT’s views
[64] ZT is nine years old and will be entering grade 5 in September 2026.
[65] Sandra Kapasky, a Clinician appointed by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to conduct and prepare a Voice of the Child Report, interviewed ZT on two occasions in February and March 2026 (once while at TB’s and once while at ST’s). She described ZT as a polite, articulate but shy girl who had some difficulty speaking about herself and interests.
[66] ZT did not express consistent views and preferences respecting a relocation to Armstrong during her interviews with Ms. Kapasky. She reported a definite wish to move during the interview when she was in her mother’s care. However, she was questioning the move during the interview when she was in her father’s care.
[67] Ms. Kapasky noted that ZT is very much aware that her parents were not in agreement about the parenting schedule and that the matter was in litigation. ZT recalled that when her parents lived together it was not “good” because “dad was mad a lot.”
[68] ZT reported that, when she and her mother initially moved to Armstrong, she liked it there and thought KM was “nice” because he buys her lots of things and plays with her.
[69] ZT reported that she gets along well with her brother NT but “not so much” with JT.
[70] When interviewed while in the care of her mother, ZT stated that if she went to Armstrong, she would be able to see her father twice a year, and that she would miss her father but that she has “so many good things ahead” of her that she is excited about the move.
[71] When interviewed while in the care of her father, ZT was more cautious about a potential move advising Ms. Kapasky that she likes living “here” and she would miss so many people if she moved to Armstrong. She told Ms. Kapasky that she was not sure whether she wanted to move as she was concerned about missing people in her life such as her father and brothers.
[72] It is noted that, during ST’s evidence, he acknowledged that when ZT was interviewed virtually by Ms. Kapasky at his home, he remained in the same room as ZT throughout the interview.
[73] I also note that ZT’s expressed views were consistently based on the assumption that, regardless of any decision regarding her relocation, she would remain in the primary care of TB and it is also not in dispute that TB has always been ZT’s primary caregiver.
Part 3 - The Law
3.1 - Best Interests test
[74] What parenting arrangement (including whether relocation should be permitted) and what decision-making authority should be ordered for a child is solely determined by what is in that child’s best interests. Further, when a relocation request is made at first instance (as opposed to by way of a variation application), a parent’s desire to relocate is determined as part of the factual matrix in the assessment of what parenting arrangement is in the best interests of the child.
[75] The Supreme Court of Canada held in Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22, at paragraph 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.
[76] The issues in this proceeding are governed by the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 (“CLRA”).
[77] Section 24 of the CLRA provides as follows:
Primary consideration
24 (2) In determining the best interests of a child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, and, in doing so, shall give primary consideration to the child's physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 6.
[78] Subsection 24 (3) of the CLRA sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors related to the child's circumstances that the court must consider in determining best interests. It reads as follows:
Factors
(3) Factors related to the circumstances of a child include,
(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 parent, each of the child's siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child's life;
(c) each parent's willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child's relationship with the other parent;
(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 co-operate, 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 co-operate on issues affecting the children; and
(k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 6.
[79] The list of best interests considerations in the CLRA is not exhaustive: White v. Kozun, 2021 ONSC 41; Pereira v. Ramos, 2021 ONSC 1737. It is also not a checklist to be tabulated with the highest score winning. Rather, it calls for the court to take a holistic look at the child, his or her needs and the persons around the child: Phillips v. Phillips, 2021 ONSC 2480.
[80] The court must ascertain a child's best interests from the perspective of the child rather than that of the parents: Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 CanLII 191 SCC. Adult preferences or "rights" do not form part of the analysis except insofar as they are relevant to the determination of the best interests of the child: Young v. Young, 1993 CanLII 34 (SCC); E.M.B. v. M.F.B., 2021 ONSC 4264; Dayboll v. Binag, 2022 ONSC 6510.
[81] A party's failure to protect a child from conflict may be an important consideration in granting primary residence or decision-making responsibility to the other parent: Dayboll v. Binag, supra.
[82] A starting point to assess a child's best interests when making a parenting order is to ensure that the child will be physically and emotionally safe. It is also in a child's best interests when making an access order that his or her caregiver be physically and emotionally safe: Armstrong v. Coupland, 2023 ONSC 5451; J.N. v. A.S., 2020 ONSC 5292; N.D. v. R.K., 2020 ONCJ 266; K.M. v. J.R., 2022 ONSC 111.
3.2 - Relocation
[83] Subsection 39.4 (3) of the CLRA provides additional factors which are to be considered where a parent seeks to relocate the residence of a child. These factors are as follows:
Best interests of the child
(3) In determining whether to authorize the relocation of a child, the court shall take into account the best interests of the child in accordance with section 24, as well as,
(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 is an applicant for a parenting order with respect to the child, 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 has complied with any applicable notice requirement under section 39.3 and any applicable Act, regulation, order, family arbitration award and agreement;
(e) the existence of an order, family arbitration 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 decision-making responsibility, parenting time or contact, taking into consideration, among other things, the location of the new residence and the travel expenses; and
(g) whether each person who has decision-making responsibility or parenting time or is an applicant for a parenting order with respect to the child has complied with their obligations under any applicable Act, regulation, order, family arbitration award or agreement, and the likelihood of future compliance. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 15.
Factor not to be considered
(4) In determining whether to authorize a relocation of the child, the court shall not consider whether, if the child’s relocation were to be prohibited, the person who intends to relocate the child would relocate without the child or not relocate. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 15.
3.3 - Burden of Proof
[84] In determining whether a relocation of the child should be permitted, the court must also consider which party, if any, bears the burden of proving that the relocation should or should not be permitted.
[85] Subsections 39.4 (5), (6), (7), and (8) of the CLRA provide as follows:
Burden of proof
(5) If the parties to the proceeding substantially comply with an order, family arbitration award or agreement that provides that a child spend 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. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 15.
Same
(6) If the parties to the proceeding substantially comply with an order, family arbitration award or agreement that provides that a child spend the vast majority of time in the care of the party who intends to relocate the child, the party opposing the relocation has the burden of proving that the relocation would not be in the best interests of the child. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 15.
Same
(7) In any other case, the parties to the proceeding have the burden of proving whether the relocation is in the best interests of the child. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 15.
Burden of proof, exception
(8) If an order referred to in subsection (5) or (6) is an interim order, the court may determine that the subsection does not apply. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 15.
Part 4 - Analysis
4.1 - Burden of proof
[86] Firstly, with respect to the burden of proof applicable to TB’s proposal to relocate with ZT, I accept that there was no clear, fully informed agreement between the parties nor a court order in place. Therefore, both parties bear the burden of establishing what parenting order is, in this instance, in ZT’s best interests. Neither party submitted otherwise at trial.
4.2 - Best interests considerations
[87] In determining the parenting and decision-making arrangement that is in ZT’s best interests, including whether ZT should relocate to Armstrong with TB, I find that the following factors most influence my determination.
[88] ZT has two parents who love her very much. This is clear and is the reason the parties have felt compelled to bring their issues before the court.
[89] TB has always been ZT’s primary caregiver. TB clearly shares a close and loving relationship with ZT. She has ensured that ZT’s physical, emotional, and psychological needs are met. There has been no evidence whatsoever to suggest that she is incapable of meeting those needs. She clearly is.
[90] The parties acknowledge that they have struggled in the past to provide a stable home environment for their children. Prior to ZT’s birth, their relationship was marred by addiction issues, resulting in NT and JT being placed in the care of the paternal grandparents for a period of time.
[91] Both parties admit that they have had a conflictual “on again, off again” relationship and that their children have been exposed to that conflict.
[92] The parties have historically struggled financially. When ZT was very young, they moved to the Madawaska property, anticipating that it was a “fixer-upper” and intending to create a home for their family. This never materialized. ZT has never had a bedroom of her own. She slept in the living room with TB.
[93] Both parties continue to have limited financial resources. TB is currently in receipt of Ontario Disability Support Program benefits. She does not have the education or work experience necessary to easily overcome her reliance on social assistance. She has struggled with anxiety and stress, which she attributes, at least in part, to her relationship with ST.
[94] ST is employed, but he does not pay child support for ZT. This is explained by the fact that NT and JT are in his sole care. He maintains that this offsets any child support he would otherwise be obliged to pay for ZT.
[95] While ZT has always maintained a close relationship with her brothers, NT and JT, that relationship has at times been negatively impacted by exposure to physically aggressive behaviour and conflict that appears to have exceeded what a child of ZT’s age should ideally be exposed to. At times, those behaviours have placed ZT at risk of physical harm and have introduced a level of emotional volatility into her life. I am not satisfied that this circumstance has changed, particularly with respect to the challenges that JT continues to experience.
[96] ZT would nevertheless benefit from maintaining her relationship with her siblings. In JT’s case, however, I believe that relationship must occur with appropriate protections in place for ZT while JT takes the necessary steps to address some of the behavioural issues he has exhibited in the past.
[97] I find that TB has demonstrated a commitment to taking appropriate precautions to ensure that ZT is not placed in an unsafe environment.
[98] ZT’s expressed views were inconsistent.
[99] I do not question that, during her interview with Ms. Kapasky while she was at her father’s home, ZT expressed that she would miss her father and her brothers. This is a legitimate and realistic concern for ZT. I am concerned, however, that ZT’s views, as expressed to Ms. Kapasky, may have been constrained by ST’s presence during the interview.
[100] ZT has not expressed any desire to change the fact that she remain in the primary care of TB. In other words, she has not requested a shared parenting arrangement, as sought by ST, nor has she expressed a wish to reside with ST as an alternative to relocating to Armstrong with TB.
[101] ZT is Indigenous through her mother’s heritage. She has received access to and support from her Indigenous community, and both TB and ST have supported that connection. According to TB, that support will continue regardless of whether ZT resides in Renfrew County or relocates to Armstrong.
[102] ST has acknowledged assaulting TB in ZT’s presence. In my view, ST minimizes the negative impact that his behaviour has had on both TB and ZT. Such behaviour could convey the unfortunate message to ZT that physical violence is normal in a domestic setting. That is an unacceptable model of behaviour.
[103] In addition, while ST acknowledges JT’s past aggressive behaviour toward TB, I conclude that he also minimizes the negative impact of exposing ZT to potentially violent or otherwise inappropriate behaviour. He does not appear to recognize the risk of future inappropriate behaviour that JT presently poses. While I commend ST for attempting to support JT as he works through a number of issues and addresses some of the missteps he has taken, I am not satisfied that JT has yet resolved his issues. Appropriate measures must therefore be taken to ensure that ZT is adequately protected from inappropriate behaviour.
[104] TB’s proposal is to relocate to Armstrong, where there appears to be an opportunity for her to establish a healthy relationship with a supportive individual who may provide a stable environment for her as she takes steps toward a better and more fulfilling life. TB is being offered an opportunity to develop employment skills that may allow her to overcome some of the challenges and limitations she has faced in the past. Having a parent who is able to achieve greater stability can only benefit ZT.
[105] A move to Armstrong offers ZT the possibility of a home environment that is better than the one TB is currently able to provide. ZT would have her own bedroom. She would reside in a home located in a rural community with opportunities to participate in a variety of activities. The relocation would require ZT to attend a new school. However, she is not currently attending the school she attended during most of her younger years.
[106] If ZT were to relocate to Armstrong, I have no doubt that she would miss her father and brothers. At the same time, they have not been the individuals who have been principally involved in her daily routine. Her mother has filled that role. ZT is old enough to use technology to maintain contact with ST and her brothers. Opportunities could also be provided for her to return to Ontario during periods of the year when she is not attending school.
[107] I do not believe that ST is presently able to provide ZT with a healthy and stable living environment. I make this observation as a comment on his present circumstances, not as a criticism. As stated earlier, ST should be commended for providing a home for both of his sons, and in particular for JT, given his ongoing challenges. However, this reality cannot be ignored, as it forms the basis of the living environment he proposes for ZT. While ZT’s relationship with ST must be promoted and preserved, I do not find that ST can presently offer her the type of nurturing environment she requires to thrive. His responsibilities are significant. In that respect, a shared parenting arrangement is not in ZT’s best interests.
[108] Further, while ST acknowledged that he engaged in inappropriate behaviour during his relationship with TB, to which ZT was exposed, he was prone to excusing that behaviour by claiming that TB had difficulty resolving matters civilly. ST shifted responsibility for his behaviour onto TB, asserting that she would call him names, would “go off the handle,” and that he could “only put up with so much.”
[109] The parties are presently prohibited from contacting one another as a result of ST’s probation terms. Apart from that, given the level of conflict between them, as well as the impact that family violence has had on TB, it would not be appropriate to expect the parties to work together at the level that would be required for a shared parenting arrangement or joint decision-making.
[110] In the circumstances, the factors favouring ZT’s relocation to Armstrong support authorizing the proposed move. ZT deserves the opportunities that such a relocation would provide, notwithstanding the fact that it will alter her routine and reduce the frequency with which she sees ST and her brothers.
Part 5 - Disposition
[111] The following Order shall issue:
The Applicant may relocate with ZT to Armstong, British Columbia.
ZT shall reside primarily with TB and TB shall have sole decision-making authority for TB.
ST may have in-person parenting time with ZT a minimum of two weeks during the summer and for one week during the remainder of the year when there is a school break. TB shall be responsible for all travel expenses for ZT’s travel to Ontario. ST is expected to ensure that proper precautions are taken to ensure ZT’s safety and security while in his care. If deemed necessary, TB should communicate with Nigig to advise them that ZT is going to be staying with ST for parenting time so that it may monitor whether appropriate precautions are in place.
TB shall ensure that ZT has access to the necessary technology to have telephone and/or video calls with both ST and her brothers. TB shall ensure that such communications between ST and ZT are facilitated in accordance with ZT’s views and preferences but in any event no less than once per week. TB shall additionally facilitate video/telephone communications between ST and ZT on ST’s birthday, ZT’s birthday, and on Father’s Day.
ST may have such further and other parenting time with ZT as may be arranged between the parties. If further travel is required, such travel shall be at ST’s expense absent agreement between the parties.
[112] If the parties are unable to settle the issue of costs between them, they may provide written submissions to me. Submissions shall not exceed three pages, excluding bills of costs, offers to settle, and case law. TB’s submissions shall be delivered within 30 days. ST’s submissions shall be delivered within 45 days.
M. Fraser J.
Released: August 13, 2026