“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. if the parties substantially comply 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. if the parties substantially comply 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)).
The law of statutory interpretation is well settled. The words of a statute “are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense, harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament” (see: Wong v Liu, 2023 ONCA 272, at para. 19). The appropriate interpretation is one “that best fulfills the objects of the legislation and that avoids any inconsistency between its different provisions and avoids absurd consequences” (see: Wong, at para. 19).”