What is the test for a variation application for custody of a child?

Though in the context of a variation application, the leading case on relocation remains Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27. At paras. 49 and 50, McLachlin J. (as she then was) summarized the law as follows: 49 … 1. The parent applying for a change in the custody or access order must meet the threshold requirement of demonstrating a material change in the circumstances affecting the child. 2. If the threshold is met, the judge on the application must embark on a fresh inquiry into what is in the best interests of the child, having regard to all the relevant circumstances relating to the child's needs and the ability of the respective parents to satisfy them. 3. This inquiry is based on the findings of the judge who made the previous order and evidence of the new circumstances. 4. The inquiry does not begin with a legal presumption in favour of the custodial parent, although the custodial parent's views are entitled to great respect. 5. Each case turns on its own unique circumstances. The only issue is the best interest of the child in the particular circumstances of the case. 6. The focus is on the best interests of the child, not the interests and rights of the parents. 7. More particularly the judge should consider, inter alia: (a) the existing custody arrangement and relationship between the child and the custodial parent; (b) the existing access arrangement and the relationship between the child and the access parent; (c) the desirability of maximizing contact between the child and both parents; (d) the views of the child; (e) the custodial parent’s reason for moving, only in the exceptional case where it is relevant to that parent’s ability to meet the needs of the child; (f) disruption to the child of a change in custody; (g) disruption to the child consequent on removal from family, schools, and the community he or she has come to know. 50 In the end, the importance of the child remaining with the parent to whose custody it has become accustomed in the new location must be weighed against the continuance of full contact with the child's access parent, its extended family and its community. The ultimate question in every case is this: what is in the best interests of the child in all the circumstances, old as well as new?

In One v. One, 2000 BCSC 1584 at para. 24, Burnyeat J. identified 12 factors relevant to determining mobility. After eliminating factors that are repeated, the factors from One that are relevant to this case are: 1. parenting capabilities of and the children’s relationship with parents and new partners; 2. employment security and prospects of each spouse and, where appropriate, their partners; 3. access to and support of extended family; 4. difficulty of exercising proposed access and quality of proposed access if move is allowed; 5. effect on the children’s academic situation; 6. psychological/emotional well-being of the children; 7. disruption of the children’s existing social and community support and routines; 8. desirability of proposed new family unit for the children; and 9. separation of siblings.