Does a judge have jurisdiction to require a mother to relocate to a particular community in order to continue to have primary care of the children?

In MacRae v. Hubley, 2011 NSCA 25 it was argued that the lower court judge erred in finding that he had no jurisdiction to require the mother to move back to the Halifax area as a condition of granting her primary care of the children. The court dismissed this ground noting that the trial judge, having accepted that the mother’s plan to have primary care of the children was in their best interests, was not required to go further and create a plan imposing the rare and unusual condition of requiring the mother to relocate to a particular community in order to continue to have primary care of the children. The judge distinguished the case as follows: In Reeves, supra, the trial judge rejected the custody plans of both parents as not being in the best interests of the children. He then crafted a custody order imposing restrictions on where the mother who had to relocate anyway because of the severe financial circumstances of the parties, could live if she wanted custody of the children. It was not necessary for the judge in this case to take that additional step as he was satisfied that the mother’s plan to have primary care of the children in Glace Bay was in their best interests.