“The appellant submits that the relocation order should be set aside because: 1) the trial judge erred by determining the question of the children’s relocation to Lindsay before deciding the issue of custody contrary to this court’s decision in Bjornson v. Creighton (2002), 2002 CanLII 45125 (ON CA), 62 O.R. (3d) 236 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [2003] S.C.C.A. No. 14; 2) the trial judge erred in his application of the law on relocation to the facts of this case; and 3) the trial proceeded in an unfair manner to the appellant whose adjournment and accommodation requests because of her disability went unheeded such that a new hearing is required.
We do not accept these submissions.
First, we do not read this court’s decision in Bjornson as establishing an absolute rule or requirement that the issue of custody must be determined before the issue of relocation. Rather, the sequence depends on the circumstances of the case and, specifically, on the best interests of the children. Bjornson arose out of the particular circumstances of that case: the sequence in which the trial judge dealt with relocation and custody was criticized because it caused him to err – he did not make the depth of enquiry required in the circumstances and failed to give the evidence of the custodial parent the great respect or most serious consideration to which it was entitled.”