- The other guardians are likely to become abusive or violent as a result of you giving notice of your move; or
- The other guardians don't really have a relationship with that child.
The Family Law Act sets out exactly what you should include in this notice, as well - you must tell the other guardian(s) when you're moving, and where you're going.
As the law goes, if the other guardian(s) object to your proposed move, they have 30 days from the day they receive your notice to file an application to stop you from moving. If they don't object in this timeframe, you're free to start packing.
However, the Family Law Act is silent on how you're supposed to give this written notice to the other guardians. Is mailing the notice okay? Would registered mail be better? Do you need to hire a process server to hand the notice to the other guardian(s)?
In the case of S.B. v. N.L., 2013 BCPC 233, Judge R.D. Morgan clears this issue up, and offers some additional guidance on the content of these 60-day notices. Specifically, at paragraph 25:
...there should also be proof of delivery of the section 66 notice. That proof could, of course, be the admission of receipt by the other party. However, there will be cases, like the one at bar, where receipt of mailed notice is denied. Consequently, it would be a best practice to have the notice served personally. Also, given the high number of self represented persons in Family Court, it would also be a best practice to include in the notice a clear reference to the 30 day time limit to file an objection. In my view, the best scenario would be a requirement in the Family Law Act Rules that the notice be served in an approved form that includes specific reference to the time limit.
So - what happens if the objecting guardian fails to object within 30 days? According to a strict reading of the Family Law Act, one might have assumed that the objecting guardian might be out of luck:
68 If a child's guardian gives notice under section 66 [notice of relocation] that the guardian plans to relocate the child, the relocation may occur on or after the date set out in the notice unless another guardian of the child, within 30 days after receiving the notice, files an application for an order to prohibit the relocation.
 To allow a full hearing of an application to prohibit relocation that was filed after the 30 day time limit, the court will consider the reasonableness of the explanation for the late filing of the objection, the length of delay in filing, and the degree to which the relocating guardian would be prejudiced by allowing the late filed application to be heard. The degree of prejudice will relate to, among other things, the date of the proposed relocation and the planning already undertaken. In the absence of a reasonable explanation, the court should require cogent and compelling evidence indicating relocation is not in the children's best interests. This should be a significant test to meet, and not simply a road bump that would nullify the intent of the legislature.
- The moving guardian should really be personally serving their 60-day notices on all other guardians.
- The opposing guardians must file their applications objecting to the move within 30 days of being served. If they don't meet that deadline, the court will consider their explanation for the delay, the length of the delay, and the harm to the moving guardian if the application is heard.
- If the objecting guardian is late in filing and they don't have a reasonable explanation for their tardiness, they will have to meet the difficult test of providing "...clear and cogent evidence that the move is not in the child's best interests." Unless there's good evidence that the move would not benefit the child, the court will permit the move.