Moving After Separation: What You Need to Know About Mobility Applications in Alberta

When parents separate, many legal questions arise about parenting time, child support, and dividing property. But one of the most difficult (and emotional) issues is what happens when one parent wants to move away with the child.

These kinds of cases are called mobility or relocation applications. They are among the most challenging matters in Alberta family law because they involve not just legal rights, but the heart of family life: where a child will grow up, go to school, and maintain their closest relationships.

For one parent, moving might feel necessary: to accept a new job, to be closer to extended family, or to pursue a fresh start after separation. For the other parent, however, a relocation may feel like losing precious time and connection with their child. Alberta law attempts to balance these competing realities, always guided by a single overarching principle: the best interests of the child.

What Is a Mobility/Relocation Application?

A mobility application arises when a parent proposes to change a child’s primary residence in a way that would significantly affect the other parent’s ability to spend time with the child. Not every move qualifies. For example:

1. A move across Edmonton from one neighbourhood to another is unlikely to count as a “relocation.”

2. A move from Edmonton to Calgary, British Columbia, or another country almost certainly would.

The key is whether the move will significantly impact the child’s relationship with the other parent or guardian. If it does, then special rules apply.

The Legal Framework in Alberta

The law governing relocation depends on whether the parents are married:

1. Divorce Act (sections 16.9 to 16.96): Applies to parents who are married and separated or divorced. Since March 1, 2021, the Divorce Act contains detailed provisions on relocation.

2. Family Law Act: Applies to unmarried parents or guardians. Although it does not use the same detailed language as the Divorce Act, Alberta courts apply very similar principles.

Both statutes emphasize that the best interests of the child must be the determining factor.

Notice and Objection Requirements

The law sets out specific notice rules to ensure that relocation is handled fairly:

1. The parent proposing relocation must give at least 60 days’ written notice to anyone with parenting time, decision-making responsibility, or contact with the child.

2. The notice must include:

3. The date of the proposed move.

4. The new address and contact information.

5. A proposal for how parenting time or contact will continue after the move.

The other parent then has 30 days to object. Objections must either be provided in writing (using the government’s form) or by applying to court.

If an objection is made, the child cannot be relocated until the court has made a decision. If there is no objection, the move may proceed.

The court can also modify or waive notice requirements in urgent cases, such as family violence.

How Do Courts Decide?

At the heart of every mobility case is the question: what is in the child’s best interests?

Factors Considered

Under the Divorce Act (s. 16.92) and corresponding Alberta case law, courts must consider:

1. The child’s relationship with each parent and others in their life.

2. The impact of the relocation on the child’s physical, emotional, and social well-being.

3. The history of caregiving by each parent.

4. The child’s views and preferences, if they are old enough and mature enough to express them.

5. The ability of each parent to support the child’s relationship with the other.

6. Cultural and heritage considerations, including Indigenous heritage.

7. Whether the relocating parent has complied with past court orders.

8. Any existing parenting orders or agreements.

9. The practicality of the proposed parenting plan after the move.

Courts may consider the reasons for the relocation, but usually only to assess whether the move is made in good faith and how it will affect the child. The law is clear: it is not about what is best for the parent, but what is best for the child.

Burden of Proof

The burden of proof depends on the parenting arrangement:

1. If parents share parenting time roughly equally, the moving parent must show the relocation is in the child’s best interests.

2. If the moving parent has the vast majority of parenting time, the objecting parent must show the move is not in the child’s best interests.

3. In all other cases, both parents must demonstrate why their proposal best serves the child.

Practical Considerations

Mobility cases are not just abstract legal disputes; they are about real-life logistics. Courts expect the relocating parent to present a detailed plan that shows how the child’s relationship with the other parent will be maintained. This can include:

1. Holiday and summer parenting schedules.

2. Who will cover the cost of travel, and how it will be arranged.

3. Provisions for virtual contact (video calls, messaging).

4. Evidence about schools, housing, and family support in the new location.

A parent who relocates without notice or court approval risks severe consequences, including orders to return the child and changes to custody or parenting arrangements.

Case Law: How Courts Apply the Principles

Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1996] 2 SCR 27

This landmark Supreme Court case established that the best interests of the child is the only governing principle in relocation matters. The Court emphasized that each application requires a fresh inquiry into the child’s current circumstances. A custodial parent’s decision to move is relevant but not decisive; it must always be weighed against the child’s overall welfare.

Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22 (CanLII), [2022] 1 SCR 517

This case reaffirmed that the best interests analysis is holistic, not a simple checklist. Courts must weigh all relevant factors in context, with the child’s safety, security, and well-being as the guiding considerations. No single factor – including the relocating parent’s reasons – automatically determines the outcome.

AMLC v. BDC, 2023 ABKB 179 – Child’s best interests not in favour of relocation.

In this Alberta case, the mother sought to relocate with her child to another province for employment and family support. The father, who had been a consistent caregiver, opposed the move.

The Court held that while the mother’s reasons were genuine, they were secondary to the child’s welfare. Relocation would weaken the child’s bond with the father and disrupt their stability in school, friendships, and community. The mother’s proposed long-distance parenting plan was also found to be impractical for preserving meaningful contact.

Relocation was therefore denied. The Court concluded that the child’s established stability and relationship with the father outweighed the potential benefits of moving.

Keeping v. Keeping, 2021 ABQB 892 – the mother gave proper notice

In this case, the key issue was whether the mother had given proper notice of relocation to New Brunswick. She served notice by registered mail, but the father deliberately refused to collect it, never filed a response, and did not participate in the process.

The Court found that the mother had met her statutory obligations by using the proper form of notice. The father’s refusal to engage could not be used to block the move. With no valid objection before the Court and given that the mother’s proposal was in the child’s interests, the relocation was upheld at the procedural stage.

Importantly, the Court clarified that this decision only confirmed compliance with notice requirements. It did not resolve whether the move was ultimately in the child’s best interests. The father retained the right to apply to court with evidence, at which point the relocation would be fully assessed on the merits. In the meantime, the child was to remain in New Brunswick.

This case underscores the importance of procedural compliance. It also illustrates that genuine relocation plans may proceed where the other parent refuses to participate – though the ultimate question of best interests must still be decided if raised later.

Practical Tips: Avoiding Litigation

Mobility disputes are often high conflict, but they do not always need to end in court. Alternatives include:

1. Mediation or Med-Arb: A neutral third party helps the parents work toward an agreement.

2. Parenting Plans with Relocation Clauses: Some parents plan ahead by building relocation rules into their agreements.

3. Open Communication: Parents who keep the focus on the child’s needs rather than their own conflict often find better outcomes.

---

Final Thoughts

Mobility applications are among the most complex issues in family law. No two cases are the same. Sometimes courts deny relocation to protect a child’s stability and preserve an important parental bond. At other times, courts permit relocation where the reasons are genuine, and the move will benefit the child overall.

What remains constant is that Alberta courts will always return to one guiding question: what arrangement is in the child’s best interests?

If you are considering relocating with your child, or if your co-parent has served you with a relocation notice, it is important to seek legal advice right away. The rules are technical, the timelines are strict, and the consequences for getting it wrong can be significant.

At Stokes Law, we regularly guide parents through these difficult decisions with clarity and compassion. If you’re facing a relocation issue, contact Stokes Law LLP to learn how we can help protect your child’s best interests and your rights as a parent.

BOOK A CONSULTATION