UNILATERAL RELOCATION WITHOUT NOTICE IS UNACCEPTABLE
Recent case law has shed light on a critical issue in family law: unilateral relocation of children without proper notice. At the Gene C. Colman Family Law Centre, we believe it’s crucial to address this problem head-on and fight for parents who have been blindsided and victimized by their former partners.
When one parent unilaterally relocates with the children without notice to the other parent, it disrupts the carefully established status quo and can create an uphill battle for the left-behind parent. In a recent decision, H.T. v. B.K., 2024 ONSC 346, Justice Alex Pazaratz made it clear that the courts will not tolerate such actions, particularly when a party is less than forthcoming in their first representations to the court.
Justice Pazaratz, known for his candid and direct opinions, strongly rebuked the mother in this case for relocating without notice and for misleading the court when she first sought an ex parte order.
Here are some key takeaways from the decision:
- Honesty is paramount: The judge strongly criticized the mother for making “secret plans” that would significantly impact the children and only afterwards announce those plans to the father. (para. 39).
- Unilateral action in face of joint custody is not allowed: The court emphasized that unilateral school change in the face of a separation agreement with joint custody is simply a no no. (para. 41b).
- Don’t attack dad when it’s baseless: Justice Pazaratz criticizes the mother for trivializing the children’s relationship with their father. “She never questioned his parenting skills until she wanted to move away.” And the judge was the one who italicized that sentence! (para. 45).
- Unilateralism Nixed: A parent who wants to move away with the children simply must give the proper notice required under the legislation. Self help is not allowed. (para. 53-54).
- False Abuse Allegations? Forget it!: Considering the entirety of the evidence before the court, Justice Pazaratz concluded that the alleged abuse was not really a factor impacting the mother’s decision. The mother just wanted to move to relocate to her boyfriend’s house. (para. 56).
As family law professionals, we must take a firm stance against unilateral actions that disrupt established parenting arrangements. Our experience at the Gene C. Colman Family Law Centre has shown that swift and decisive action is crucial in these cases.
For instance, we recently represented a client who (with another lawyer) initially attempted a Collaborative Law process after his ex-partner suddenly unilaterally relocated with their children. Adopting the very wholesome and solution oriented collaborative approach, while well-intentioned, actually hindered his case. When we came on board and tried to secure an emergency hearing to get the kids returned, the first judges that we approached could not perceive the urgency of the situation due to the client’s attempt to “play nice.”
Nonetheless, we aggressively pursued the matter, ultimately succeeding in re-establishing the status quo and returning the children to the jurisdiction. This case illustrates a vital lesson: while amicable resolution is ideal, unilateral relocation is an emergency, and it must be treated as such from day one.
At the Gene C. Colman Family Law Centre, we understand the complexities of these situations. We’re committed to fighting hard for parents who have been victims of unilateral actions by their former partners. Our approach combines legal expertise with a deep understanding of the emotional toll these situations take on families.
If you’re facing a similar situation, don’t wait. The sooner you act, the better your chances of preserving your rights and your children’s all important relationship with you. Contact the Gene C. Colman Family Law Centre today, and let us help you navigate this challenging terrain with the assertiveness and expertise that unilateral relocation demands.