“I have considered the best interest factors set out in ss. 24 and 39.4(3) CLRA. While it has long been established that the best interest considerations as set out in the CLRA is not an exhaustive list, the considerations provide significant guidance in this case.
While considering factors set out in the legislation, the court is required to take a holistic look at the child, their needs, and the people around them: see Phillips v. Phillips, 2021 CanLII ONSC 2480, at para. 47.
At para. 17, in Reeves v. Brand, 2018 ONCA 263, Laskin J.A. wrote:
17 Relocation or mobility cases, where one parent wants to take a child and move some distance away from the other parent, are among the most difficult cases in family law. If the custodial parent is permitted to move with the child, inevitably the relationship between the non-custodial parent and the child will be affected and may suffer. Typically, the court must balance the custodial parent’s legitimate interest in relocating with the non-custodial parent’s legitimate interest in maintaining a relationship with the child. But in every case, the ultimate question is what is in the best interests of the child.
With the recent amendments to the CLRA, a more detailed procedural and substantive structure has been established to govern relocation cases. Even with these amendments, the challenges recognized in Reeves remain. See Zorab v. Zourob, 2021 ONSC 6552, at para. 4.”
Lepine-Maynard v. Majstrorovic, 2022 ONSC 656 (CanLII) at 205-208