Christina Nicole Dianne Elizabeth Hinds

The mother appealed an order denying her permission to relocate her three-year-old daughter from Toronto to Ennis, Ireland.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made material errors, seriously misapprehended evidence, and committed legal errors in his "best interests of the child" analysis under the Divorce Act.

Specifically, the trial judge erred in assessing family violence allegations, making unfounded assumptions about the mother's family's attitude towards the child's biracial heritage, and concluding that the mother manipulated the court system.

The trial judge also erred by re-characterizing the relocation case as a "support case" and misapplying the burden of proof.

The appeal was allowed, the trial decision set aside, and a new trial ordered on an expedited basis, with costs awarded to the mother.

This decision concerns the costs award following a trial where the applicant's request to relocate the child from Toronto to Ireland was dismissed.

The court had previously ordered compensatory spousal support for the applicant to facilitate her Canadian optometry registration.

The respondent, successful on the main relocation issue, sought significant costs.

The court awarded the respondent $70,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, but deferred payment until the applicant achieves self-sufficiency, specifically by December 31, 2026, or three months after obtaining full-time employment as an Ontario Doctor of Optometry.

The court considered the applicant's strategic allegations of abuse and the need to avoid frustrating the primary judgment's purpose.

The court issued supplementary reasons for judgment regarding support calculations and parenting time, following an earlier trial decision.

The key issues were the inclusion of the respondent's severance income for spousal support, imputation of income to the applicant, and the appropriate Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) range.

The court ruled that the respondent's severance income would not be included for spousal support calculations, declined to impute income to the applicant, and confirmed the spousal support award at the middle of the SSAG range, with the respondent also responsible for 50% of the applicant's future educational expenses.

The court issued supplementary reasons for judgment regarding the parenting schedule following a trial.

The Respondent's motion to reopen the trial to submit fresh evidence was denied, as the court found discussions between counsel should be a safe space and post-trial conduct should not lead to a never-ending trial.

The Applicant sought a phased-in, unequal parenting schedule and a stay of any immediate substantial change pending her appeal of the relocation decision.

The court rejected the Applicant's arguments, finding her reliance on the "status quo" disingenuous and her appeal not a basis to tailor the trial judge's remedy.

The court ordered an accelerated transition to the Respondent's proposed "2-2-3" equal parenting schedule, effective June 4, 2023, and denied the stay request.

The applicant mother sought to relocate with the parties' three-year-old daughter to Ireland, arguing she needed to return to her home country to practice optometry and escape the respondent father's alleged coercive control.

The father opposed the relocation.

The court dismissed the relocation application, finding the mother's allegations of abuse lacked credibility and her economic rationale was flawed, as she could upgrade her degree in Canada.

Instead of permitting relocation, the court ordered the father to pay compensatory spousal support to fund the mother's professional requalification in Ontario, and ordered joint decision-making for the child.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff under Rule 56.01(1)(d).

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion seeking a sealing order for an affidavit and to exclude certain evidence allegedly obtained improperly by the defendants.

The court dismissed the cross-motion for a sealing order, finding the plaintiff did not meet the Sherman Estate test.

On the security for costs motion, the court found the defendants met their initial onus of showing good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient assets.

The plaintiff was ordered to post security for costs in the amount of $105,000 on a pay-as-you-go basis.

The applicant mother brought a motion to enforce child and spousal support arrears and section 7 expenses, while the respondent father brought a cross-motion to terminate or vary support.

The court found that the adult child ceased being a 'child of the marriage' as of April 1, 2018, after withdrawing from parental control and failing to pursue a reasonable educational plan.

The court imputed an annual income of $54,000 to the applicant due to her failure to seek employment and her rent-free living situation.

The court allowed partial sharing of the respondent's post-separation income increases but ordered spousal support to terminate at the end of 2022.

The applicant's motion was dismissed and the respondent's cross-motion was granted.