Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages
lawyer
acf-field-group
acf-field
location
New BC Divorce Act Changes Relocation Lawyers

New BC Divorce Act Changes Relocation Lawyers at MacLean Law took the time to extract the new sections from Bill 78 that received Royal assent in the third week of June 2019 week. Guidelines were given under the BC Family Law Act in 2013 but our NEW BC DIVORCE ACT CHANGES RELOCATION LAWYERS noted inconsistent approaches between the Divorce Act and the Family Law Act. Our NEW BC DIVORCE ACT CHANGES RELOCATION LAWYERS operate out of 6 offices across BC and Calgary, Alberta.

NEW BC DIVORCE ACT CHANGES RELOCATION LAWYERS 1-877-602-9900

The Government welcomed the Royal Assent of Bill C-78  and Three federal laws have been amended: the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act (FOAEAA) and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act (GAPDA).

Some critics say the new Bill falls short by not mandating shared parenting as a presumption. What do you think?

The legislation which will take effect in a year or two from today has four key objectives:

  • promote the best interests of the child
  • address family violence
  • help reduce child poverty, and
  • make Canada’s family justice system more accessible and efficient.

Here are the proposed new rules NEW BC DIVORCE ACT CHANGES RELOCATION LAWYERS will be using on the relocation of children after separation:

KEY TAKEAWAYS

The burden on the test for moving away changes depending on whether the status quo before the relocation application involved shared parenting or a primary residence situation.

Relocation authorized
16.‍91 A person who has given notice under section 16.‍9 and who intends to relocate a child may do so as of the date referred to in the notice if
(a) the relocation is authorized by a court; or
(b) the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) the person with parenting time or decision-making responsibility in respect of the child who has received a notice under subsection 16.‍9(1) does not object, by application under subsection 16.‍1(1) or paragraph 17(1)‍(b), to the relocation within 30 days after the day on which the notice is received, and
(ii) there is no order prohibiting the relocation.
Best interests of child — additional factors to be considered
16.‍92 (1) In deciding whether to authorize a relocation of a child of the marriage, the court shall, in order to determine what is in the best interests of the child, take into consideration, in addition to the factors referred to in section 16,
(a) the reasons for the relocation;
(b) the impact of the relocation on the child;
(c) the amount of time spent with the child by each person who has parenting time or a pending application for a parenting order and the level of involvement in the child’s life of each of those persons;
(d) whether the person who intends to relocate the child complied with any applicable notice requirement under section 16.‍9, provincial family law legislation, an order, arbitral award, or agreement;
(e) the existence of an order, arbitral award, or agreement that specifies the geographic area in which the child is to reside;
(f) the reasonableness of the proposal of the person who intends to relocate the child to vary the exercise of parenting time, decision-making responsibility or contact, taking into consideration, among other things, the location of the new place of residence and the travel expenses; and
(g) whether each person who has parenting time or decision-making responsibility or a pending application for a parenting order has complied with their obligations under family law legislation, an order, arbitral award, or agreement, and the likelihood of future compliance.
Factor not to be considered
(2) In deciding whether to authorize a relocation of the child, the court shall not consider whether the person who intends to relocate the child would relocate without the child if the child’s relocation was prohibited.
Burden of proof — person who intends to relocate child
16.‍93 (1) If the parties to the proceeding substantially comply with an order, arbitral award, or agreement that provides that a child of the marriage spend substantially equal time in the care of each party, the party who intends to relocate the child has the burden of proving that the relocation would be in the best interests of the child.
Burden of proof — person who objects to relocation
(2) If the parties to the proceeding substantially comply with an order, arbitral award or agreement that provides that a child of the marriage spends the vast majority of their time in the care of the party who intends to relocate the child, the party opposing the relocation has the burden of proving that the relocation would not be in the best interests of the child.
Burden of proof — other cases
(3) In any other case, the parties to the proceeding have the burden of proving whether the relocation is in the best interests of the child.

Call our NEW BC DIVORCE ACT CHANGES RELOCATION LAWYERS today at 1-877-602-9900.