September 1 – Mobility Cases & The Importance of Being Primary Caregiver

“In dismissing the motion, the motion judge correctly applied the proposition from this court in Berry v. Berry2011 ONCA 705 (CanLII)285 O.A.C. 366 that the “superordinate consideration” in a mobility case is the best interests of the child, determined from a child-centred perspective (para. 10). Accordingly, in assessing the mother’s reasons for moving, the motion judge correctly held that the only reasons relevant to the analysis were those that related to her ability to meet the needs of her son.

A motion judge’s decision not to allow a relocation is discretionary and it is not the place of this Court to engage in a rebalancing of the factors identified in Berry. However, as explained below, the motion judge made an error in principle by not characterizing the mother as the primary caregiver of the child, which led to the further error that her reasons for moving were not entitled to the serious consideration required by Gordon v. Goertz1996 CanLII 191 (SCC)[1996] 2 S.C.R. 27.

The Supreme Court of Canada held in Goertz, at para. 48, that where assessing a motion to relocate:

…the views of the custodial parent, who lives with the child and is charged with making decisions in its interest on a day-to-day basis, are entitled to great respect and the most serious consideration. The decision of the custodial parent to live and work where he or she chooses is likewise entitled to respect, barring an improper motive reflecting adversely on the custodial parent’s parenting ability.

The motion judge held that in circumstances of joint and shared custody, there is no primary caregiver, and therefore neither parent’s interests can have greater weight than the other’s.

We do not agree that the legal status of joint and shared custody forecloses the possibility that one parent can be, for the purposes of a mobility motion, the primary caregiver. On the record before us, it is evident that although the parties have joint and shared custody, the mother is nevertheless the primary caregiver.”

Porter v. Bryan, 2017 ONCA 677 (CanLII) at 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16