Vancouver, B.C. – A British Columbia Supreme Court judge has dismissed a mother’s application to move with her two children to Belgium, ruling that she failed to prove the relocation would be in the children’s best interests. In a case cited as Sobolyeva v Cook, 2025 BCSC 1536 (CanLII), Tetyana Anatoli Sobolyeva sought to move her nine-year-old daughter, Zoya, and five-year-old son, Arden, from North Vancouver to Brussels for a new job opportunity. However, Justice Loo found that the potential benefits of the move did not outweigh the significant disruption it would cause to the children’s lives and their relationship with their father, Shawn Anthony Cook. The decision hinged on the provisions of the Family Law Act and the specific circumstances of the family, particularly the shared parenting arrangement that had been in place since the couple’s separation.
Sobolyeva and Cook were in a marriage-like relationship from 2011 to 2023, and while they were never married, they entered into a separation agreement and parenting agreement in December 2024. The parenting agreement established a shared parenting arrangement, with the parents having substantially equal parenting time. This detail was critical because under the Family Law Act, when parents have “substantially equal parenting time,” the parent proposing a relocation must satisfy the court that the move is being made in good faith and that it is in the best interests of the children. This placed the burden of proof squarely on Sobolyeva. Her application was heard on July 15, 2025, and Justice Loo’s decision, dismissing the application, was issued on August 11, 2025.
One of the central issues addressed by the court was Sobolyeva’s argument that Cook had been uncooperative in discussing the proposed move. She claimed he had not substantively responded to her proposals and had failed to meet his legal obligation to “cooperate with one another for the purpose of resolving any issues relating to the proposed relocation.” However, Justice Loo determined that this alleged lack of cooperation was not a factor to be considered in the relocation application itself. The judge noted that the legal obligation to cooperate might apply more to unopposed relocations and that the Family Law Act does not specify what consequences, if any, flow from a failure to cooperate in a case where a court application is made. The court’s focus remained on the specific factors outlined in the Family Law Act for determining relocation applications, and the judge concluded that the father’s conduct did not substantially affect the best interests of the children.
The court then moved on to analyze the factors for relocation as set out in the Family Law Act, starting with whether the proposed move was made in good faith. Sobolyeva had been laid off from her job in British Columbia in November 2024 and had been actively searching for a new position in her specialized field in the hydrogen fuel cell industry. She argued that the industry was declining in B.C. and that she had received a job offer in Brussels that necessitated the move. The court accepted that Sobolyeva had legitimate reasons for wanting to relocate, finding that the new job would enhance her quality of life, both financially and emotionally, by allowing her to resume her career and be closer to her parents, who live in Ukraine. However, the court questioned whether this would enhance the children’s quality of life, noting that the benefits were largely financial and that the children did not need to move to Brussels to receive them. The judge also found that Sobolyeva’s claims about better educational opportunities for the children in Brussels were not supported by sufficient evidence.
The analysis of good faith also required the court to consider a parenting agreement that Sobolyeva and Cook had signed in December 2024. The agreement stipulated that neither parent would move more than a 30-minute commute from the children’s school without the other’s written consent or a court order. The agreement also included recitals acknowledging the parties’ shared desire to disrupt the children’s lives as little as possible. Cook argued that Sobolyeva should be bound by this agreement, as her job circumstances had not changed significantly since its signing. Sobolyeva countered that her circumstances had changed because she had now applied to 67 companies and received only two job offers, making the Belgian offer her most viable option. Justice Loo decided that the parenting agreement should not weigh heavily in the decision, as Sobolyeva had properly applied to the court for an order, which the agreement itself contemplated as a possibility.
The next factor considered was whether Sobolyeva had proposed reasonable and workable arrangements to preserve the children’s relationship with their father. She presented three options, two of which involved Cook moving to Brussels with them. Justice Loo found these options to be “unrealistic and unworkable,” citing Cook’s age, his current employment as a fire prevention specialist in Canada, and his lack of transferable skills or a job prospect in Belgium. The third option, where Cook would remain in Canada and visit the children in Brussels with his flights and accommodations paid for by Sobolyeva, was deemed workable in a practical sense. However, the judge found that a drastic reduction in Cook’s parenting time could not be considered reasonable unless the move was determined to be in the best interests of the children.
The final and most crucial step in the court’s process was to determine if the relocation was truly in the best interests of the children, an overriding principle in all family law matters. The judge compared the children’s life in North Vancouver with their father to their proposed life in Brussels with their mother, assuming that in either scenario, they would be substantially without one of their parents. The court considered the children’s health and emotional well-being, noting the significant potential downsides to their emotional well-being that would result from being removed from the only country they had ever known. The children’s views were not directly considered, as neither party provided reliable, sworn evidence from them. The court found that the relationships the children had with other significant people in Vancouver were not particularly strong, but there were also no significant relationships in Brussels to support a move, making this factor neutral.
The children’s need for stability was also a key consideration. The judge emphasized that staying in Vancouver would mean the children’s lives would not be disrupted, as they would remain in the same neighborhood they grew up in, and Zoya would stay with her friends. This factor, the court concluded, favored the father’s position. Finally, the judge questioned Sobolyeva’s ability to care for the children in Belgium given the demands of her new job, which required long hours and potential travel. She had proposed that her elderly parents, who live in Ukraine and face significant health and travel challenges, would provide childcare. The court found this to be an inconsistent and unreliable plan, raising concerns about how the children’s care would be managed in the long term.
In the end, Justice Loo concluded that Sobolyeva had not met the burden of proof to show that a move to Belgium would be in the children’s best interests. The judge determined that the positive elements of the move, such as the potential financial benefits, were not enough to outweigh the disruption to the children’s emotional well-being and the questions surrounding their long-term care. The court ordered Sobolyeva to pay the costs of the application to Cook.
Read about other family law cases here.
