QM v RM

The parties were engaged in proceedings related to their divorce and the parenting of their shared child. The Respondent sought an Order permitting them to relocate from Calgary, Alberta to Vancouver, British Columbia (the “Relocation Application”). The Court issued a decision permitting the relocation. After the decision regarding relocation was issued, the Applicant applied to re-open the Relocation Application pursuant to Rule 9.13 on the basis of information that came to light in the time between the hearing of the Relocation Application and the issuance of the decision.

The Applicant alleged that following the hearing of the Relocation Application, the Respondent experienced a material change in their employment opportunities in Vancouver. The Applicant took the position that a major consideration for the Court in granting the Order permitting relocation was the Respondent’s anticipated employment opportunities. The Applicant argued that this change in circumstances was significant enough that it warranted a re-opening of the Relocation Application.

After considering Rule 9.13 and the surrounding case law, the Court noted that the Rule should be used sparingly and should not be used as an avenue to advance new arguments that could have been advanced previously. While Justice Marion noted that there had been changes to the Respondent’s employment opportunities, these changes would not have an impact on the overall decision, as the employment opportunities were not the only area of importance for the Court. Justice Marion held that the Applicant had not satisfied the Court that there was good reason to hear further evidence and modify its Order. As such, the Applicant had not satisfied the requirements of Rule 9.13 and the Application was dismissed.