“A relocation is more likely to be approved “where the clear primary caregiver for a child seeks to relocate” and more likely to be denied if there is a shared parenting arrangement (see: Barendregt, at para. 121).
The applicable burdens of proof on a relocation application are as follows:
a. where there is substantial compliance with a court order, arbitral award or agreement that provides that the child spend substantially equal time in the care of each party, the party intending to relocate the child has the burden of proving that the relocation would be in the child’s best interests (see: Divorce Act, s. 16.93(1));
b. where there is substantial compliance with a court order, arbitral award or agreement that provides that the child spend the vast majority of their time in the care of the party intending to relocate the child, the party opposing the relocation has the burden of proving that the relocation would not be in the child’s best interests (see: Divorce Act, s. 16.93(2)); and
c. in all other cases, the parties share the burden of proving whether the relocation is in the child’s best interests (see: Divorce Act, s. 16.93(3)).
Courts are generally reluctant to authorize relocation on interim motions and the burden of proof on such motions is on the party seeking to change the status quo to prove that sufficient compelling circumstances exist to justify the relocation (see: Markowski v. Krochak, 2022 ONSC 2497, at para. 75).”