CANADA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Shannon Beddoe, Annabelle Lim and Susannah Mungall, McCarthy Hansen & Company LLP
effect of housing and rental prices, inflation, interest rates, and childcare has shifted the analysis in many locales from optimisation to viability. In metropolitan regions and growing midsized cities, family-sized rentals have become more expensive. For a parent earning a moderate professional income – such as CAD95,000.00 – rent for a two- or three- bedroom unit can consume a disproportionate share of net income, especially with utilities, transportation, and children’s expenses. Since 2021, inflation has affected essential goods and services, and the Bank of Canada has responded with interest rate increases. Higher borrowing costs cas - cade through rental markets and household budgets. Groceries, transportation, and children’s activities have risen in price. For families relying on guideline child support and finite employment income, these increases tighten margins and heighten the value of extended family support or lower-cost regions. Childcare availability and cost patterns vary by prov - ince and municipality. Although federal-provincial agreements aim to reduce average fees, transitional dynamics and supply constraints leave many families facing substantial out-of-pocket costs or limited avail - ability, particularly for after-school and school-age programmes. For a single parent working full time, reliable after-school care is essential. When grandpar - ents or extended family bridge that gap at little or no cost, the effect on children’s routines and the parent’s work stability can be decisive. In the opening vignette, rent in the existing community exceeds CAD4,000; after-school care adds CAD1,500; transportation and other fixed costs remain. After tax - es and child support, the parent may face a structural monthly deficit that budgeting alone cannot solve. Extended family three hours away offers a suite at half the housing cost and free daily childcare. The child’s schooling, friendships, and access to the other parent weigh heavily in favour of geographic stability, but the economic picture suggests that stability in the existing locale may be illusory. What differs today is the mag - nitude of hardship in particular markets and the speed with which financial pressure destabilises housing and caregiving. For some families, maintaining two post-
separation households in the same community has become economically unattainable. Part IV: economic necessity versus economic preference Economic necessity in the relocation context means a parent cannot maintain a minimally adequate, stable living arrangement for the child in the current commu - nity despite reasonable efforts, given objective hous - ing costs, childcare availability, employment opportu - nities, and the parent’s resources. It is not a claim of mere inconvenience or a desire for an upgraded life - style. It contends that remaining would compromise basic stability – secure housing, consistent routines, sustainable budgeting – putting the child’s welfare at risk. Economic preference captures “I would rather live elsewhere”: a move aimed at lifestyle enhancement, access to amenities, or general improvement that, while beneficial, is not required to preserve stability. Economic necessity captures “I cannot afford to live here”: a move compelled by the mismatch between income (including child support) and the fixed costs of appropriate housing and care. The line is fact-inten - sive and requires objective evidence: market rents, documented childcare costs and availability, employ - ment search records, and support networks. Canadian relocation jurisprudence has treated finan - cial considerations as one factor among many, to be weighed with the child’s relationships, schooling, and routines. But when a court refuses relocation based on other factors while economic evidence shows that remaining is unsustainable, the analysis raises a more fundamental question: whether the family is being required to inhabit an economic reality that no longer exists. The law need not – and should not – create a new presumption in favour of moving. It should, how - ever, address whether “staying” is a real option or a nominal comparator masking looming instability. Recognising economic necessity does not license strategic moves or dilute the child’s relationships. Courts can and should require a relocating parent to demonstrate with objective evidence that reason - able local alternatives were explored; employment opportunities assessed; support from both sides of
54 C HILD RELOC AT I ON 20 26
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook