Law360 Canada ( May 1, 2026, 9:35 AM EDT) -- Appeal by D.S. from interim parenting order placing the parties’ nine‑year‑old child in the primary care of K.C. The 2021 Trial Judgment denied K.C.’s prior relocation request and required the child to reside primarily with D.S. in a specific Saskatchewan town, with detailed parenting time provisions and joint decision-making. D.S. unilaterally moved with the child to a new Alberta town without notice or consent, stating he obtained new employment. He initially emailed K.C. proposing three options, including the child residing with her; she responded selecting that option. Days later, he retracted and indicated the child would reside with him in his new town. On K.C.’s application, the Chambers judge treated the move as a relocation, found a significant material change in circumstances, and conducted a fresh best interests analysis. D.S. appealed, arguing the Chambers judge erred by treating the move as a relocation, misallocated the burden of proof, improperly disrupted the status quo, failed to consider his proposed parenting plan, misapprehended evidence regarding his job and living situation, and created a presumption favouring community over primary care bonds. K.C. submitted that D.S. repeatedly characterized the move as a relocation, conceded a material change, and that the interim order properly responded to instability created by his unilateral move....