What is the test for a court to determine whether a parent's reason or motive for moving to a new location is justified?

McLachlin J., in Gordon v. Goertz, at para 22, criticized some of the older cases which descended into inquiries into the custodial parent’s reason or motive for moving and which stood for the proposition that: If the move is considered “necessary”, the decision is considered justified, entitling the parent to retain custody in the new location. If, on the other hand, it is made for a less noble reason, the custodial parent may be required to choose between losing custody or moving. The focus shifts from the best interests of the child to the conduct of the custodial parent.

McLachlin J, also in Gordon v. Goertz, instructs that the reasons or motive for moving will not usually be relevant to the custodial parent’s parenting ability. There is no suggestion in the case before me that the applicant’s decision to move is motivated by any desire to thwart contact between the children and the respondent, the access parent. This is not a case where the applicant’s wish to move reflects adversely on her perception of the needs of the children or on her judgment about how those needs may best be fulfilled. I accept that the applicant’s motive and reasons for moving to Scotland relate primarily to the stable and supportive environment for her children which will be provided by both the applicant and her mother, and which will be augmented by the emotional support and involvement of her extended family in Scotland. In addition, she has secured employment which she believes will provide long-term opportunities for her.