By Kayleigh Pink, Associate Research Lawyer,
Lam Family Law*

Many parents want to travel with their child(ren), whether for vacations and/or to visit extended family abroad. While travelling can have many benefits, the potential risks are often at the forefront of a parent’s mind when involved in a family law dispute. This article:

  • i) discusses the court’s jurisdiction to make orders related to travelling with a child and obtaining government-issued documents for travelling;
  • ii) highlights recent cases on the issue of travel consents and related issues;
  • iii) examines the meaning of the commonly-used language “consent not to be unreasonably withheld”; and
  • iv) suggests wording for travel-related clauses, based on recent case law.

This article does not explore the impact (if any) of a parent’s proposed travel to a country that is a signatory to the Hague Convention versus a non-signatory country. Note: this issue does come up in Arabi v. Al-Sahnawi (2026), discussed below, but any commentary on this point is minimal and outside the scope of this article.

Legislation and General Principles

Ontario courts have broad jurisdiction under both the Divorce Act and the Children’s Law Reform Act to address incidents of parenting, which includes travelling with a child both within and outside of Canada, and obtaining, renewing, and holding a child’s government documents required to travel internationally: see Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), ss 16 & 16.1(4)(d) & Children’s Law Reform Act, RSO 1990, c C.12, ss 28(1)(b) & (c)(iv).

A decision regarding whether a child should be permitted to travel outside Canada is an incident of parental decision-making responsibility and, as such, turns solely on whether it is in the child’s best interests: Sadeghpour v Ansari-Shourijeh, 2025 ONSC 7115 (CanLII), at para 61, citing Divorce Act, ibid, ss 16 & 16.1.

At the same time, “[a] parent who has decision-making responsibility does not automatically acquire the right to obtain government documentation for a child or to travel internationally with the child without the other parent’s consent. Those issues are distinct and require clear order terms where consent is not realistically achievable.”: Shah v Romero, 2026 ONCJ 55 (CanLII), at para 177 [footnotes omitted], Daudlin J., citing various cases

If a parent wishes to travel with a child, or obtain government documents for a child, they should pursue one of two options: obtain consent from the other parent, or obtain a court order dispensing with the other parent’s consent.

A family’s decision-making arrangement does not determine whether a court will dispense with a parent’s consent. However, many of the factors that support a finding of sole decision-making, such as the other parent being unresponsive or unreasonable, are also relevant to the issue of consent/dispensing with consent. See, e.g., Akova v. Orel, 2022 ONSC 5119 (CanLII) and Oshungbemi v. Taylor, 2025 ONCJ 483 (CanLII), digested below. However, in many cases, the court will refuse to dispense with consent, where the parties have an order or agreement for joint decision-making. See, e.g., H.M. v. N.M., 2026 ONCJ 20 (CanLII), digested below.

Example Cases: Both Parties’ Consent Required

In H.M. v. N.M. (2026), Justice Sager ordered joint decision-making responsibility for the child (aged 2) and required the parties to obtain each other’s written consent prior to traveling with the child outside of Canada. Additionally, neither party could obtain government-issued documents for the child without the other’s consent or signature on the application form. In reaching these conclusions, Justice Sager noted that both parents were responsible and involved, and should have the opportunity to travel with the child for the purpose of a vacation. Nevertheless, “leaving the country, even for a vacation, is a major decision that the parties must agree is in [the child’s] best interest”: H.M. v. N.M., 2026 ONCJ 20 (CanLII), at paras 213, 242, & 246.

In Dessye v. Lopez (2025), Justice Mintz ordered shared decision-making responsibility for the child (aged 2.5) for major health, education, and welfare decisions, with the mother having final decision-making authority for any issues on which the parties could not agree. The mother sought an order allowing her to travel with the child without the father’s consent, arguing that the father wanted a mutual non-removal order to exert control over her. The court appeared to reject this argument, referring to a previous 10-day trip she had taken with the child to Punta Cana. Justice Mintz granted a mutual non-removal order, meaning that neither party could remove the child from Ontario without advanced written consent (which was not to be “unreasonably withheld”) finding that the mother had not provided sufficient evidence to show why the orders she sought were in the child’s best interests, and stating that the court would “not be dispensing with these parental rights without good reason to do so.”: Dessye v. Lopez, 2025 ONCJ 429 (CanLII), at paras 5(1), 195-196, 199-200, & 281(18).

Example Cases: Dispensing With a Party’s Consent

The court may dispense with a party’s consent where it is concerned they will not respond in a “timely” manner to travel requests. For example, in Akova v. Orel (2022), Justice Davies granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility for the child (aged 7), permission to travel internationally without the father’s prior consent, and permission to apply for and renew the child’s passport and other travel documents. The mother wanted to travel with the child to Turkey, where her mother and siblings lived. Given the father’s lack of participation in the proceedings, including failing to provide an offer to settle prior to the settlement conference, not attending the trial management conference, not filing an answer, and being noted in default (which resulted in an uncontested trial), the court was concerned he would fail to respond in a timely way to the mother’s requests to travel, and would frustrate her ability to take the child to meet his extended family: Akova v. Orel, 2022 ONSC 5119 (CanLII), at paras 10 & 15-18.

Justice Davies held the father was still entitled to know “when, where, and for how long” the mother intended to travel with the child. Thus, if she planned to be out of the country for more than 72 hours, she was required to provide an itinerary 14 days before departure, including information about flights, accommodations, and a telephone number for emergencies. If the mother and child travelled for more than one week, the father was to have virtual parenting time at least once per week for up to 30 minutes: Akova v. Orel, ibid, at paras 19-20.

The court may also dispense with a party’s consent where they have “unreasonably withheld consent” to the other party’s past travel requests. For example, in Oshungbemi v. Taylor (2025), the parties agreed the child (aged almost 2) would reside primarily with the mother and she would have sole decision-making responsibility. Justice Sherr granted the mother permission to travel outside of Canada with the child without the father’s consent, and to obtain or renew the child’s government documentation without consent: Oshungbemi v. Taylor, 2025 ONCJ 483 (CanLII), at paras 2 & 81(c)-(d).

In coming to this conclusion, the court considered that the mother had successfully brought an urgent motion in January 2025, when the father refused to consent to the child’s travel to Barbados to attend her grandfather’s funeral. At that time, the court permitted the trip without the father’s consent and ordered him to pay costs of $2,500. The mother subsequently traveled with the child internationally on two occasions, where, on both occasions, the father signed travel consents “but only after delay, the involvement of counsel, and putting the mother through some emotional distress.” The court held the father was not behaving in a child-focused manner but, rather, was “using the requirement of his consent to take back some control he feels he has lost in this matter”. Thus, it was in the child’s best interests “to experience the benefits of international travel” without obstruction from the father. The court also noted that the mother had been “very reasonable” by always proposing make-up time when she travelled, providing the father with a travel itinerary, and being prepared to give him copies of all government documents she obtained for the child: Oshungbemi v. Taylor, ibid, at paras 19 & 46-50.

The father also sought relief related to travel; however the court found that his request was premature, as the child was only starting three consecutive overnights with him in about three months. However, if the expanded parenting time progressed well, there was no reason the father’s travel requests should not be ordered in the future: Oshungbemi v. Taylor, ibid, at para 51.

Consent Not to be “Unreasonably Withheld”

Where both parties must obtain the other’s consent to travel with the child, there is often language in the order or agreement preventing “unreasonable” withholding of consent.

Whether a party’s refusal to consent is reasonable is fact-specific. For example, in Fatima v. Tunio (2025), the parties had an order requiring that “consent shall not be unreasonably withheld”. Despite this order, the father repeatedly refused to consent to the mother travelling with the child, leading to her bringing motions and/or the child missing out on opportunities to travel. On one occasion, the mother requested consent to travel with the child to Pakistan. The father refused because the mother had not yet paid her share of s. 7 expenses and because Pakistan was not ratified under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

Justice Agarwal held that the father’s refusal was unreasonable. First, the issue of s. 7 expenses was irrelevant to travel. Second, “there are significant benefits to travel, especially where children get to visit extended family and explore their heritage.” Finally, the father provided no evidence to show it was even plausible the mother would refuse to return from Pakistan. The court found the father’s refusal to be reasonable was another example of the parties’ inability to communicate about major decisions, and again showed the father as the source of the conflict. As a result, Justice Agarwal ordered that the mother apply for the child’s passport, the father to sign the application, the mother to keep the passport and give it to the father when he needed it for travel, and for neither party to remove the child from Canada except for short vacations (up to two weeks).

In contrast, where the travelling parent has previously disobeyed court orders, the court may find a parent’s refusal to consent to travel to be reasonable. For example, in Arabi v. Al-Sahnawi (2026), the mother refused to consent to proposed travel with the children (approx. aged 14 and 12) for their paternal uncle’s wedding in Dubai. In refusing the request, she claimed: (a) the proposed 10-day trip during the school year would be disruptive to the children’s education and their school commitments; (b) the father was in breach of several court orders and had not demonstrated reliability in matters involving international travel; and (c) the final order did not entitle the father to travel with the children “absent meaningful discussion, compliance, and trust – which is not currently present”. In her affidavit, she added that she did not refuse consent to travel outright, but asked that the outstanding matters, including the father’s non-compliance with the final order, be resolved first. She also noted that the Canadian government had put out a travel advisory in respect of travel to the UAE, and that the UAE was not a signatory to the Hague Convention: Arabi v. Al-Sahnawi, 2026 ONSC 707 (WL), at paras 18, 23, & 33-35.

Justice Chozik held that there were compelling and reasonable explanations for the mother’s refusal to consent to the proposed travel. “When a person does not comply with multiple terms of a Final Order, does not pay anything he is ordered to pay and does not produce the required disclosure set out in the court order in order to finalize equalization, it shows disrespect for the court and a likelihood of future non-compliance with court orders.” The father’s unreasonableness was further pronounced because he subsequently withheld one of the children contrary to the final order, and did not comply with the requirement to return the child to the mother’s care the first time he was ordered to do so by the court. The father’s motion for a finding that the mother should be held in contempt for unreasonably withholding her consent for travel was dismissed: Arabi v. Al-Sahnawi, ibid, at paras 3, 36-37, & 43. See also Ashkan v. Yeganeh, 2024 ONSC 1563 (CanLII) [Kristjanson J. found it was not unreasonable for the father to refuse consent due to his concern about the child’s school and academic performance].

Recently Used Wording for Travel Clauses

See the following recent cases for guidance in drafting travel-related clauses:

  • for language where neither party may travel, apply for, or renew the child’s government-issued documents without consent, see, e.g., H.M. v. N.M., 2026 ONCJ 20 (CanLII), at paras 271-276.
  • for language where one party’s consent to travel with the child and to obtain or renew the child’s government-issued document is dispensed with and the other parent is entitled to make-up parenting time (where the travel occurs during regular parenting time), see, e.g., Oshungbemi v. Taylor, 2025 ONCJ 483 (CanLII), at para 81(c)-(e).
  • for language where one party is permitted to obtain certain government-issued documents for the child either without consent or in the event of a failure to provide consent; one party is permitted to travel internationally with the child without consent but must provide certain travel information; and/or one party must obtain prior notarized signed consent to travel with the child, see, e.g., Shah v. Romero, 2026 ONCJ 55 (CanLII), at paras 196(19)-(25).

*with thanks to Maria Golarz for her suggestions and edits.
 
This blog is informational only and should not be relied on as legal advice.