In T.K. v R.J.H.A., the parties were married and the wife sought to move from Victoria to Toronto with the two children. The trial judge considered the wife's claim under the Divorce Act rather than the Family Law Act, and ultimately concluded that it was in the children's interests to continue with the shared parenting arrangement that had prevailed previously. The wife appealed this result.
I don't think it's necessary to say much about this case, as the law, at least the law emanating from the Court of Appeal, is fairly well settled. The case, however, should be read and is very helpful for:
- the court's excellent survey of the leading appellate cases on mobility;
- confirming that Gordon v Goertz remains the leading case for mobility applications heard under the Divorce Act;
- addressing the restricted circumstances under which the reasons for a proposed move may be considered under Gordon; and,
- discussing the double-bind that can arise if there is a factual presumption in favour of the status quo and against relocation.
The cases reviewed in T.K. include Nunweiler v Nunweiler, Falvai v Falvai, S.S.L. v J.W.W., Hejzlar v Mitchell-Hejzlar and Stav v Stav, appeal cases all. The court's description of the law on relocation as a "jurisprudential minefield" is apt.