When separated parents disagree about where a child should live, the dispute can become particularly complex if one parent wants to move to another province. A recent British Columbia Court of Appeal decision emphasizes that relocation cases require a detailed comparison of the child’s future under each proposed parenting arrangement.
In Leger v. Williams, the Court considered a dispute involving a young child who had been taken from British Columbia to New Brunswick without advance notice to the other parent. The Court set aside an order requiring the child’s return because the earlier analysis did not properly compare the competing parenting arrangements or remain sufficiently focused on the child’s best interests.
Parent Moved Across the Country With a Young Child
The parents lived together in Terrace, British Columbia, and had a son born in April 2024. Their relationship was described as volatile. The mother alleged that she experienced intimidation, demeaning language, threats of eviction, and other emotionally abusive conduct.
In March 2025, when the child was approximately 11 months old, the mother left Terrace with the child and moved to New Brunswick, where her parents lived. She did not provide the father with advance notice. There was no parenting agreement or court order in place at the time.
The father applied to the Provincial Court for the child’s return. The mother opposed the application and asked that the child remain with her in New Brunswick while the parents attempted to establish parenting time through mediation.
The Initial Return Order
The Provincial Court found that both parents were loving and capable caregivers. The mother had provided most of the child’s daytime care, while the father had been actively involved outside his working hours.
The Court was concerned about the effect of the move on the father’s relationship with the child and the child’s connection to the father’s Indigenous community and culture. It was not persuaded that the mother’s concerns about family violence, housing, and stability justified the move.
Return Order Didn’t Specify Where Child Would Live
The child was ordered to return to the Terrace area within six weeks. However, the order did not determine where the child would live or create a detailed parenting schedule. The parents were instead directed to share parenting time as they could arrange between themselves.
The mother appealed to the British Columbia Supreme Court, which upheld the return order. She then appealed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
How Section 46 Applies Without an Existing Parenting Order
Section 46 of British Columbia’s Family Law Act applies when there is no written parenting agreement or court order and a guardian plans to change a child’s residence in a way that could significantly affect the child’s relationship with another guardian.
The Court of Appeal confirmed that this framework may still apply after a parent has already removed the child. A parent cannot avoid the relocation provisions simply by completing the move before the other parent files an application.
Under section 46, the court must consider the best interests factors listed in section 37 of the Act. These include the child’s emotional well-being, important relationships, history of care, need for stability, and each guardian’s ability to meet the child’s needs. The court must also consider the reasons for the move. However, it must not consider whether the parent proposing the move would relocate without the child.
The Focus Must Remain on the Child
The Court of Appeal found that the mother’s reasons for leaving had overwhelmed the Provincial Court’s analysis. Although the manner of the move raised legitimate concerns, the main issue was not whether the mother’s conduct should be approved or condemned.
A relocating parent is not required to establish that a move is necessary. The reasons for moving are relevant only to the extent that they relate to the child’s best interests. A lack of a compelling reason should not determine the outcome unless it reflects negatively on the parent’s ability or willingness to meet the child’s needs. The analysis must remain centred on the child rather than on assigning blame.
The Court clarified that removing a child without agreement or a court order may still have consequences. The manner of the move may support adverse findings where it affects the child or the child’s relationship with the other parent. The decision did not condone unilateral removal.
Courts Must Compare Realistic Parenting Plans
Relocation decisions are forward-looking. A court must consider what the child’s life would realistically look like under each proposed arrangement. This may include where the child would live, who would provide daily care, how parenting time would operate, how travel would be managed, and how the child’s cultural and family relationships could be maintained.
The Provincial Court considered the benefits of the father’s parenting and the child’s connection to his Indigenous identity. However, it did not adequately consider the impact of separating the child from his mother, who had been his primary caregiver and had a particularly strong relationship with him.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the required blended analysis had not occurred. The earlier decision did not fully balance the relevant factors or compare comprehensive parenting plans for British Columbia and New Brunswick.
A Return Order Cannot Assume the Parent Will Return
The Court also identified a problem with the assumption underlying the return order. Section 46 prohibits a court from considering whether the relocating parent would move or remain in the new location without the child. This avoids placing the parent in a position where either answer could be used against them.
The Provincial Court ordered the child to return to Terrace but did not meaningfully address what would happen if the mother stayed in New Brunswick. It also directed the parents to arrange shared parenting time despite their conflict and the distance between their homes.
The Court of Appeal found that the order implicitly assumed the mother would return with the child. However, a court cannot require a parent to live in a particular community. The parenting analysis must account for the possibility that the parents will remain in different provinces.
Family Violence Remains Relevant
The Family Law Act requires courts to consider how family violence may affect a child’s safety, security, and well-being. Family violence may include physical violence, emotional or psychological abuse, intimidation, and coercive or controlling behaviour.
It can be relevant even if the conduct was not directed at the child. Exposure to conflict or abusive behaviour between family members may affect the child’s well-being and the practicality of arrangements requiring parental cooperation.
Although the appeal was decided based on errors in the relocation analysis, the decision reinforces that family violence allegations must be meaningfully assessed as part of the child’s overall best interests.
The Return Order Is Set Aside
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the order requiring the child’s return to Terrace. It did not decide whether the child should ultimately live in British Columbia or New Brunswick.
Instead, the Court directed that the relocation issue be reconsidered at a scheduled Provincial Court hearing under sections 45 and 46 of the Family Law Act.
The decision illustrates that appellate intervention may be required where the correct relocation framework has not been applied, even though family law decisions and best interests findings are generally entitled to substantial deference.
What This Decision Means for BC Relocation Disputes
Relocation disputes are not decided solely by examining whether a parent had a satisfactory reason for moving or whether the move occurred without notice. The court must assess the child’s future under the realistic parenting arrangements proposed by each parent.
Parenting proposals may address the child’s primary residence, regular parenting time, holidays, travel expenses, virtual contact, schooling, health care, cultural connections, and communication between the parents.
The central question remains which arrangement would best support the child’s safety, stability, emotional well-being, and important relationships. The analysis must consider both possible outcomes without assuming that a parent will relocate simply because the child is ordered to live in a particular place.
Contact Meridian Law Group to Speak With a Vancouver Family Lawyer About Parenting and Relocation
Relocation disputes may involve parenting time, guardianship, family violence, jurisdiction, cultural connections, and the child’s best interests under the British Columbia Family Law Act.
Meridian Law Group assists parents with child relocation applications, mobility disputes, parenting arrangements, return applications, and family violence concerns throughout Vancouver and the Lower Mainland. Contact us online or call (604) 337-6184 to discuss your circumstances and the family law process that may apply.
