In Tovmasyan v. Petrosian (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered an appeal of a child 'relocation' order made under the CLRA:
[4] The most contentious issue at trial was whether the respondent would be entitled to relocate with the children. This decision involved the application of s. 39.4 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 12 (“CLRA”). The trial judge was guided by the factors set out in s. 39.4(3). In careful reasons, the trial judge explained why it was appropriate to permit the respondent to re-locate, particularly why it was in the best interests of the two children to move to a location where their extended family members already reside.
[5] The appellant submits that the trial judge erred in placing the onus on him to establish why the proposed re-location should not be permitted. We disagree. Section 39.4(6) of the CLRA places the burden on the part opposing the re-location if the children “spend the vast majority of time in the care of the party who intends to relocate” with the children. The trial judge found that the children spent the vast majority of the time in the care of their mother, the respondent. The appellant submits that the trial judge overlooked the fact that he was prevented from spending more time with the children due to criminal charges he was facing for assaulting and threatening the respondent and the children. We disagree. The trial judge considered this issue within a much broader frame. She found that the appellant exercised only minimal parenting time with the children and showed only the faintest of interest in increasing his time with them in any substantial way.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
