Child relocation in Ontario is not decided by how far you are going. It is decided by whether the move is likely to have a significant impact on the child's relationship with the other parent, and by which of you has been doing the parenting.
About this work
A change in the place of residence of the child, or of a person with parenting time or decision-making responsibility, that is likely to have a significant impact on the child's relationship with another person who has parenting time, decision-making responsibility, a pending application for a parenting order, or contact under a contact order.
Notice what it does not say. It does not set a distance. It does not distinguish between moving within Ontario, to another province, or abroad. The question is entirely about the effect on a relationship, which means the same move can be a relocation in one family and an ordinary change of address in another.
In practice the schedule decides it. A parent with alternate weekends and a Wednesday dinner loses the Wednesday if the child moves an hour away, and that is a significant impact even though nobody has left the province. A parent who has not exercised parenting time in two years has a weaker argument that a move to Alberta significantly affects a relationship that is not being exercised.
Getting the category right matters because the obligations are completely different. Section 16.7 provides that the ordinary change of residence provision does not apply where the change is a relocation, so the two are alternatives rather than layers. Treating a relocation as an ordinary move means no sixty days, no prescribed form and no proposal, and section 16.92(1)(d) makes compliance with the notice requirement a factor the court weighs against you.
The clock
60 days notice, 30 days to object
The two periods run into each other. Notice goes out at least sixty days before the expected date, and the person receiving it has thirty days from receipt to object. Silence has consequences.
The sixty days is section 16.9(1) of the Divorce Act and section 39.3(1) of the Children's Law Reform Act. The thirty day objection period is section 16.91(1)(b)(i), with Ontario's equivalent in section 39.4. An ordinary change of residence is section 16.8, which requires written notice of the date and the new address but sets no minimum period. Under sections 16.9(3) and (4) a court may disapply or modify the requirement, including where there is a risk of family violence, on an application made without notice to the other party.
The definition
Both the Divorce Act and Ontario's Children's Law Reform Act define relocation the same way, and neither of them mentions kilometres. That surprises almost everybody who asks about this.
It is a change in the place of residence of the child, or of a person with parenting time or decision-making responsibility, that is likely to have a significant impact on the child's relationship with another such person or with someone who has contact under a contact order.
If the schedule is a weeknight dinner and alternate weekends, and the new address makes the weeknight impossible, that is a significant impact on the relationship whatever the map says. Thirty minutes in the wrong direction can matter more than a province.
Where the other parent has had no meaningful involvement and no order or agreement is being disturbed, a long move may not be likely to have a significant impact on a relationship that was not being exercised. That is a judgment on the facts rather than an assumption.
Divorcing or divorced parents are under the Divorce Act. Parents who were never married are under the Children's Law Reform Act, which was amended in parallel and sets the same sixty day notice and the same structure.
Side by side
6 points of difference
The Act treats these as two different things, and section 16.7 says so expressly: the ordinary notice provision does not apply where the change is a relocation. Getting the category wrong is the most common mistake made here.
The route
6 stages, each with its own clock
Each provision below is from the federal Divorce Act as amended by 2019, c. 16, in force 1 March 2021. Ontario's Children's Law Reform Act carries the parallel scheme for parents who were never married, added by 2020, c. 25.
A person with parenting time or decision-making responsibility who intends to relocate must notify anyone with parenting time, decision-making responsibility or contact, at least sixty days before the expected date, setting out the date, the new address and contact information, and a proposal for how parenting time could be exercised.
The relocation may proceed on the date in the notice if a court authorises it, or if the recipient does not object within thirty days of receiving the notice and there is no order prohibiting the move. An objection is made in the prescribed form or by bringing an application.
The form must state that the person objects, give the reasons for the objection, and set out their views on the proposal for parenting time that was contained in the notice. An objection that engages with the proposal is a stronger document than one that simply refuses.
Where the parties substantially comply with an arrangement giving the child substantially equal time with each, the person who wants to move must prove the relocation is in the child's best interests. Where the child spends the vast majority of time with the person who wants to move, the person objecting must prove it is not. In any other case, both parties bear it.
A court may decide not to apply those two burden rules where the order or agreement in question is an interim order. A temporary arrangement made in the weeks after separation does not lock in an advantage for either parent.
On top of the ordinary best interests factors, the court considers the reasons for the move, its impact on the child, each person's involvement, whether notice was given, any order specifying where the child is to live, the reasonableness of the parenting proposal including travel costs, and each person's compliance with their obligations. It must not ask whether the person would move anyway if the child could not go.
Before the meeting
6 things to bring
Bring what you have and say what is missing. A meeting with the papers in front of it settles in one sitting what two telephone calls will not.
Our approach
The same four steps on every matter, whether it is a refusal at the Federal Court or a ticket at the Provincial Offences court.
Book a consultationWe take the full history and read the documents before offering an opinion. Most bad advice comes from acting on half the facts.
You get a candid read on strength, timeline and cost, including when the honest answer is that you do not need to hire anyone.
We prepare the application, the defence or the appeal properly the first time, because fixing a weak record later is harder and dearer.
You hear from us at each stage, and you hear what a wait actually means rather than a date chosen to sound better.
Reported decisions
7 allowed of 22 reported since 2023
Public judgments of the Federal Court with Kapil Rathod as counsel of record, each checkable by citation on the court's own site. The rest were dismissed and are listed with these ones.
Super visa, parents and grandparents
2026 FC 99Docket IMM-23381-24
Application allowedWork permit, Temporary Foreign Worker Program
2026 FC 105Docket IMM-18690-24
Application allowedTemporary resident visa
2026 FC 805Docket IMM-20802-24
Application allowedPermanent residence, Express Entry
2025 FC 275Docket IMM-1797-24
Application allowedWork permit, job offer
2024 FC 1928Docket IMM-6445-23
Application allowedStudy permit
2024 FC 1487Docket IMM-3700-23
Application allowedTemporary resident visa
2024 FC 1453Docket IMM-10337-23
Application allowedChild relocation in Ontario turns on impact rather than distance, on sixty days notice with thirty days to object, and on which parent has actually been doing the parenting.
The proposal inside the notice does more work than anything else in the process, on both sides.
Common questions
8 answered here
Written to be read once and acted on rather than to be rung about. Each answer is complete where the law allows a complete answer.
One of three things, and two of them are quiet. The recipient objects within thirty days, in the prescribed form or by bringing an application. Or a court authorises the relocation. Or the thirty days pass with no objection and no order prohibiting the move, in which case the relocation may go ahead on the date set out in the notice.
That third outcome is why the objection period matters so much. A parent who receives a relocation notice, is upset by it, and spends six weeks deciding what to do has allowed the move to become permissible. Objecting is not a formality to be dealt with later.
Section 16.91(2) sets out what an objection must contain: a statement of the objection, the reasons for it, and the person's views on the parenting proposal in the notice. That last requirement rewards engagement. An objection that says the proposed schedule is unworkable and explains why is a better document, and a better starting point for negotiation, than one that simply refuses to agree.
For the person proposing the move, the quality of the proposal in the notice does a great deal of work. Section 16.92(1)(f) asks the court to consider the reasonableness of the proposal to vary parenting time, taking into account the location of the new residence and travel expenses. A notice that offers longer blocks in school holidays, regular video contact, and a realistic answer on who pays for flights is a different application from one that offers nothing.
It depends on the arrangement the parties have actually been complying with, and this is the part of the scheme that changes advice most.
Where the parties substantially comply with an order, arbitral award or agreement providing that the child spend substantially equal time in the care of each, the person who intends to relocate carries the burden of proving the move is in the child's best interests. Where they substantially comply with one under which the child spends the vast majority of time with the person who wants to move, the person objecting carries the burden of proving it is not. In any other case, both parties bear it.
Two words in those provisions do a lot of work. Substantially comply means the court looks at what has been happening rather than at what the document says, so a parent who has not been exercising the time they were given cannot rely on the schedule on paper. And the categories are substantially equal or vast majority, which leaves a wide middle where nobody has the advantage and both sides have to make out their case.
Section 16.94 adds an important limit. A court may decline to apply either burden rule where the order in question is an interim order. A temporary arrangement put in place in the weeks after a separation, often without much thought, does not hand one parent a structural advantage on a relocation years later.
The notice requirements can be set aside. Under section 16.9(3) a court may order that the requirements do not apply, or modify them, including where there is a risk of family violence, and section 16.9(4) allows that application to be made without notice to any other party. The same applies to the ordinary change of residence provision under sections 16.8(3) and (4).
That is deliberate and it matters. A person leaving an abusive relationship should not have to disclose a new address sixty days in advance to the person they are leaving. Where safety is in issue, the application to be relieved of the notice requirement comes first, before anybody moves and before anything is served.
Where a move has already happened without notice, the position is harder but not hopeless. Compliance with the notice requirement is a factor under section 16.92(1)(d) rather than a bar, so a court can still authorise a relocation that began badly. It will want to know why notice was not given, and a good reason is a very different thing from an oversight.
For the parent left behind in that situation, speed matters. An application to prohibit the relocation or for the child's return should not wait, because the longer a child is settled in a new place the more the practical facts start to shape the outcome, whatever the merits of how it happened.
There is no distance in the definition. A relocation is a change of residence likely to have a significant impact on the child's relationship with another person who has parenting time, decision-making responsibility or contact. A move across a city can qualify if it breaks the existing schedule, and a longer move might not if the relationship was not being exercised.
At least 60 days before the expected date, under section 16.9(1) of the Divorce Act or section 39.3(1) of the Children's Law Reform Act if you were never married. The notice goes in the prescribed form and must set out the date, the new address and contact information, and a proposal for how parenting time would be exercised afterwards.
The move becomes permissible. Under section 16.91(1) the relocation may proceed on the date in the notice if there is no objection within 30 days of the notice being received and no order prohibiting it. Objecting means completing the prescribed form or bringing an application, and the form has to give reasons and respond to the parenting proposal.
It depends on your arrangement. If you substantially comply with one giving the child substantially equal time with each of you, the parent moving must prove the relocation is in the child's best interests. If the child spends the vast majority of time with the parent moving, the objecting parent must prove it is not. Otherwise both of you bear it, and a court may decline to apply the first two rules where the order is only interim.
No. Section 16.92(2) provides that in deciding whether to authorise a relocation the court shall not consider whether the person intending to relocate the child would move without them or not move at all if the relocation were prohibited. It closes off a question that used to put parents in an impossible position.
Bring the schedule you have both been following and the dates on any notice. Child relocation in Ontario runs on short periods, so this is a conversation to have now.
