‍‍When a relationship ends, the desire to start fresh in a new city can be overwhelming. But when a child is involved, that personal decision becomes a complex legal matter with significant consequences. For a parent wanting to relocate, the decision can feel like a fight for their future; for the parent staying behind, it can feel like their connection to their child is at risk. This emotionally charged scenario is a common issue in family law, one governed by rules that can be surprisingly counter-intuitive.

A recent decision from the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Angelillo v. Mughal , sheds important light on how relocation law operates. The case involved a father who successfully appealed a judge’s decision preventing him from moving, only to learn that he could not pack his bags just yet. In examining the decision, three key takeaways emerge, each showing how the law prioritizes a child’s stability in ways many people may not expect. These are not simply legal points; they are strategic realities that can shape the outcome of any relocation dispute.

‍

1. The Burden of Proof Can Be Completely Reversed

Takeaway #1: The parent opposing the move may need to prove why the relocation is not in the child’s best interests.

‍

Most people assume that the parent seeking to relocate with a child must carry the full burden of proving the move is in the child’s best interests. Angelillo v. Mughal shows that, in certain circumstances, the law does the opposite.

‍

The appellate court relied on section 16.93(2) of the Divorce Act, which states that when a child spends the “vast majority of their time” with the parent seeking to relocate, the law presumes the move is in the child’s best interests. This legal presumption flips the dynamic:

• The relocating parent starts with an advantage.
• The opposing parent must show why the move would not be best for the child.

‍

This made the trial judge’s approach a serious error. The judge accepted that the father had bona fide reasons for relocating, such as a new job requiring commuting and an opportunity for the child to connect with extended family in Montréal. However, rather than beginning with the legal presumption, she identified weaknesses in the father’s plan and defaulted to maintaining the status quo.

‍

The Court of Appeal found that she had applied the wrong legal test by treating the parents as though they shared equal responsibility for proving their positions, even though the father was the primary caregiver.

‍

The logic behind this presumption, as cited from legal scholar D.A. Rollie Thompson, is clear:

“…it is usually in the child’s best interests to relocate with that parent since this will maintain continuity of care and stability in the child’s life…”

This illustrates a fundamental principle of family law:

‍a child’s stability with their primary caregiver is often viewed as paramount.

‍

‍

2. Winning an Appeal Doesn’t Automatically Get You the Outcome You Want

Takeaway #2: Even if you win, the case can be sent back for a fresh start.

‍

Mr. Angelillo won his appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed that the trial judge had made a significant legal error. The order preventing his move was set aside.

‍

But he still did not get immediate permission to relocate.

‍

Instead, the appellate court sent the entire relocation issue back to the Superior Court of Justice for a new hearing. Why? Because the child’s circumstances had materially changed over the 10 months since the original trial.

‍

The mother’s parenting time had increased substantially, from supervised access to:

• one weekday overnight, and
• every other weekend from Friday to Monday.

‍

Relocation decisions must reflect the child’s present circumstances, not an outdated snapshot. A “legal win” months later does not guarantee a specific outcome if the child’s day-to-day life has evolved.

‍

This underscores a key reality in family law:

‍The child’s current best interests outweigh procedural victories.

‍

‍

3. Appeal Courts Don’t Decide Who Is Right, They Correct Legal Errors

Takeaway #3: Appeal judges are umpires, not decision-makers on the facts.

‍

Both parents asked the Court of Appeal to essentially redo the trial.

• The father argued that the trial judge misinterpreted some evidence.
• The mother argued that the judge ignored important facts about harassment and mischaracterized her mental health.

‍

The appellate court declined both requests.

‍

Appeal courts do not retry cases. They do not reweigh evidence or decide who is the better parent. Their job is limited to determining whether the trial judge made a legal mistake.

‍

The only error the Court of Appeal found, and the only one it was permitted to correct, was the trial judge’s failure to apply the correct presumption under the Divorce Act. Beyond that, the appellate judges would not step in to reconsider the factual findings or evaluate parenting plans.

‍

This reflects the core role of the appellate system:

‍fix legal errors, but defer to the trial judge’s assessment of evidence.

‍

‍

Conclusion: Striking a Delicate Balance

The path from the trial decision to the Court of Appeal in When a relationship ends, the desire to start fresh in a new city can be overwhelming. But when a child is involved, that personal decision becomes a complex legal matter with significant consequences. For a parent wanting to relocate, the decision can feel like a fight for their future; for the parent staying behind, it can feel like their connection to their child is at risk. This emotionally charged scenario is a common issue in family law, one governed by rules that can be surprisingly counter-intuitive. demonstrates how complex relocation cases can be. Outcomes depend on both the unique facts of the family’s circumstances and legal principles that may not align with common expectations.

This case shows that family law is designed to be flexible and responsive to a child’s present reality, even if it means that a successful legal appeal ultimately sends all parties back to square one.