Michael F. Charles

The appellant father appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent mother sole custody of their child and permitting her to relocate to Quebec.

The father argued the mother interfered with his access and that the trial judge failed to apply the maximum contact principle or give proper weight to the custody assessor's report.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings.

The court emphasized that trial judges are owed considerable deference in custody matters and that the weight given to expert evidence is for the trier of fact.

The mobility clause was struck out as moot since the mother had already returned to Ontario.

The parties separated after an 18-month marriage.

The trial judge ordered the appellant husband, who had a net worth of approximately $20 million, to pay $500,000 in lump sum spousal support to the respondent wife.

The husband appealed, arguing that the short duration of the marriage did not justify spousal support, or alternatively, that support should be periodic and limited to three years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the wife's earning capacity was impaired by the marriage and her parenting responsibilities.

The Court held that a lump sum was appropriate to promote her economic self-sufficiency and allow her to acquire stable housing for herself and the parties' child.

In a family law appeal involving an exceptionally high-income payor, the court held that the presumptive Table amount under s. 4 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines could be displaced where clear and compelling evidence showed it was inappropriate.

The court found the child support award required a fresh hearing because the trial judge had been bound by pre-Francis authority and had made insufficient findings on the child's means, needs, and circumstances.

The cross-appeal on spousal support was also allowed because the trial judge failed to consider all objectives in s. 15.2(6) of the Divorce Act.

The court dismissed the custody and wedding gift issues, but held that the wealthy payor should ordinarily bear the costs of litigating child support where the custodial parent is forced to defend the presumptive Table amount.