What the case was about

In N.G. v. M.G.G., 2026 BCSC 1343, the Supreme Court of British Columbia considered whether a mother could relocate with two children from Duncan to the Lower Mainland. The children were 11 and 13. The dispute required the Court to assess the proposed move, the parties' parenting history, the children's interests, allegations and findings of family violence, and a report prepared under section 211 of British Columbia's Family Law Act.

The Court permitted the relocation. The result did not turn on a presumption in favour of either parent. It followed a fact-specific assessment of the children's best interests under the applicable relocation provisions of the Divorce Act.

There is no automatic shared-parenting starting point

One practical point from the decision is that Canadian parenting law does not begin with a default equal-time arrangement. The focus is the children's best interests, not a parent's entitlement to a particular percentage of parenting time.

That does not mean the relationship between a child and each parent is unimportant. Courts consider the history of care, the child's relationships, stability, each parent's ability and willingness to meet the child's needs, the effect of a proposed move, and the feasibility of preserving meaningful contact. The weight given to each factor depends on the evidence.

Why the section 211 recommendation was not determinative

A section 211 report may provide the Court with useful information about the children's needs, relationships, views, and the parenting circumstances. It remains evidence, however, and the judge must make the final decision.

In this case, the report recommended against relocation. The Court gave the relocation recommendation no weight because it rested on an assumption that the mother would remain in Duncan if the move were refused. Section 16.92(2) of the Divorce Act prohibits a court from considering whether the parent proposing the move would relocate without the child if permission were refused. A recommendation built on that prohibited premise could not safely guide the result.

The decision is a reminder that expert evidence must be examined for its instructions, assumptions, methodology, and fit with the governing legal test. The existence of an expert report does not remove the need for careful legal analysis.

Family violence is broader than physical assault

The Divorce Act uses a broad definition of family violence. Coercive and controlling behaviour, psychological abuse, threats, financial abuse, and conduct that creates fear may be relevant even without physical injury.

The Court considered non-physical family violence as part of the best-interests analysis. In a parenting or relocation case, the question is not simply whether violence occurred. The Court also considers its nature, seriousness and frequency; whether there is a pattern of coercive control; whether the conduct is directed at a child or witnessed by a child; the resulting harm or risk; and whether the person responsible has taken meaningful steps to prevent recurrence.

What families can take from the decision

A relocation proposal should be supported by concrete evidence. Depending on the case, that may include housing, schooling, employment, childcare, transportation, support networks, travel costs, and a workable plan for the children's relationship with the other parent.

The responding parent also needs evidence about the actual effect of the move, not only an objection in principle. Courts compare realistic alternatives and assess the arrangements that are genuinely available.

N.G. v. M.G.G. does not create a rule that relocation will be allowed whenever an expert's recommendation is rejected or family violence is found. It illustrates how statutory limits, evidentiary assumptions, and the complete best-interests record can shape the outcome.

Source and important note

This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Relocation and parenting cases are highly fact-specific, and the governing provisions can depend on the orders and legislation applicable to the family.