“The appellant asserts that the trial judge erred in his analysis when he failed to consider the amendments to the Divorce Act which will come into force on March 1, 2021 and will include s. 16.92(2). The provision, once amended, will read as follows:
16.92(2) In deciding whether to authorize a relocation of the child, the court shall not consider, if the child’s relocation was prohibited, whether the person who intends to relocate the child would relocate without the child or not relocate.
While this provision was not in force at the time of the trial, and is not yet in force, it is a fair submission by the appellant that s. 16.92(2) reflects Parliament’s view about the court’s approach to the moving parent’s intentions when considering the best interests of the child.
The Government of Canada website provides the following explanation for the s. 16.92(2) amendment:
Parents seeking to relocate with their children are sometimes required to answer in court the difficult question of whether or not they would proceed with a relocation if they were not permitted to bring their children. A response of “I won’t relocate without my child” may be interpreted as evidence that the proposed relocation is not sufficiently important and should not be permitted. A response of “I would relocate without my child” may be interpreted as evidence that the parent is not sufficiently devoted to the child.
This provision would prohibit courts from considering this question — or the parent’s response — if raised in the context of the court proceedings. This will assist in focusing on the specific legal issue before the court.
Parliament’s explanation of s. 16.92(2) reflects the “classic double bind” that has been recognized in the jurisprudence for many years. When the parent who wants to move with the children is asked whether they will stay in their current location should the mobility order not be made, the parent is immediately placed in a “lose-lose” situation. If they answer that they would stay with the children, it allows the court to fall back on the status quo and force the parent to remain when that result may not be in the best interests of the child. By contrast, if the parent says that they would go regardless, it allows the court to draw an adverse inference about that parent’s dedication to the children. The problematic double bind has led the courts to repeatedly discourage judges from relying on a parent’s representations about whether they will or will not move without the children: see, for example, Spencer v. Spencer, [2005] A.J. No. 934, 2005 ABCA 262, 371 A.R. 78, at para. 18; Hopkins v. Hopkins, [2011] A.J. No. 1413, 2011 ABCA 372, at para. 6; and Hejzlar, at paras. 24-27.”