The Divorce Act Changes Explained

Relocation

Burden of proof – person who objects to relocation
(Section 16.93(2), Divorce Act)

New section

Burden of proof — person who objects to relocation

(2) If the parties to the proceeding substantially comply with an order, arbitral award or agreement that provides that a child of the marriage spends the vast majority of their 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.
Old section

None.

What is the change

When, pursuant to an order, arbitral award or agreement with which the parents generally comply, the child spends the vast majority of the time with one parent and that parent seeks to relocate with the child, the parent who objects to the relocation must demonstrate that it is not in the best interests of the child.

Reason for the change

When one parent is responsible for the vast majority of the child’s care pursuant to a court order or an agreement, disallowing a relocation is likely to have a significant impact on the child’s relationship with their primary caregiver. The parent opposing the relocation must therefore demonstrate to the court that despite this impact, the disadvantages of the move would outweigh its advantages and that therefore the relocation is not in the best interests of the child.

When

March 1, 2021.