CANADA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Shannon Beddoe, Annabelle Lim and Susannah Mungall, McCarthy Hansen & Company LLP
the move would unduly impair the child’s relationship with the non-relocating parent. Theme E : travel costs and the durability of parenting plans Courts examine whether proposed post-move parent - ing schedules are financially and logistically durable. Promises to fund frequent travel are tested against actual budgets and contingencies. Where the relocat - ing parent’s plan depends on optimism, courts may be sceptical. Where a parent demonstrates realistic travel budgets, specific flight or driving schedules, and back-up plans, courts are more receptive, all else equal. Across these themes, the common thread is eviden - tiary discipline. The label “economic necessity” does not carry the day; proof does. When the record estab - lishes that remaining is untenable, courts are more likely to accept relocation plans preserving mean - ingful relationships through durable, funded contact regimes. When the record shows that staying is fea - sible, or the proposed move would erode a crucial relationship without commensurate stability gains, relocation is refused. Part VII: toward a more explicit recognition of economic necessity No new doctrine is needed. The best interests test – statutory and common law – already accommodates economic realities. What is needed is a more explicit, transparent articulation of how economic necessity is evaluated within that test. This transparency promotes consistent adjudication and helps parties and counsel marshal the right evidence early. Within the existing framework, courts might consider these factors when economic necessity is invoked, without creating presumptions or altering burdens: • objective housing evidence – specific, current data on market rents and vacancy for appropri - ate housing in the child’s community; documented searches; evidence of pending displacement; and a concrete housing plan in the proposed location, including costs, terms, and suitability for the child; • employment and income stability – evidence of current employment constraints (hours, com -
mute, flexibility), efforts to secure sustainable local employment, concrete offers or opportunities in the proposed location, and the impact on net income. Where remote or hybrid work is relevant, documen - tation of employer policies and feasibility; • childcare availability and coverage – waitlist status, hours of operation, costs, suitability for the child’s needs, and demonstrated gaps in local options; details of proposed childcare in the new location, including the role of extended family and any con - tingencies; • support networks – the nature, reliability, and extent of support from extended family or commu - nity in both locations, distinguishing between occa - sional help and integral daily caregiving; the impact on the child’s broader relational world, including siblings and half-siblings; • travel feasibility and costs – a realistic, funded plan for maintaining the child’s relationship with the non-relocating parent, including travel schedules, modes, costs, who bears them, and contingency planning for disruptions; • alternatives explored – evidence that the relocat - ing parent rigorously pursued local alternatives: downsizing, co-housing, adjusting work schedules, sharing caregiving, and accessing community pro - grammes; and, conversely, that the non-relocating parent considered adjustments to support stability (for example, increased care to reduce childcare costs); and • child-centred impacts – how each option affects the child’s day-to-day life: routines, schooling con - tinuity, extracurricular activities, healthcare access, and the child’s views and preferences where age- appropriate; • temporal realism – whether the proposed plan – stay or move – is sustainable beyond the short term, based on budgets, savings buffers, and foreseeable changes (lease expiries, job contracts, childcare transitions). These factors do not add to the test; they make visible the economic predicates of stability courts already weigh. Transparent articulation helps avoid outdated assumptions about the affordability of “stay - ing”, encourages early exchange of relevant financial and logistical information contemplated by the 2021
56 C HILD RELOC AT I ON 20 26
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook