What is the law relating to mobility issues in a custody matter?

In Gordon v. Goertz, McLachlin J. (as she then was) set out the principles applicable where a court is called upon to determine whether one parent should be allowed to change the location of a child’s primary residence. At para. 19, she pointed out that the best interests of the child is not only a paramount consideration in such cases, but the only relevant consideration. At para. 49, she summarized the law relating to mobility issues, which the trial judge in this case also set out at para. 43 of his decision. The relevant parts of that summary are as follows: 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.