CITATION: Khan v. Kong, 2009 ONCA 21

DATE: 20080109

DOCKET: C48060

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Before: Doherty, Weiler and MacFarland JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

Richard Khan and Suzette Khan

Appellants

and

Tony (Chee Mun) Kong

Respondent

Counsel:

Gary S. Joseph for the appellants

Judith Holzman for the respondent

Heard: January 8, 2009

On appeal from the order of Justice C. Nelson of the Superior Court of Justice dated November 5, 2007.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] We would not interfere with the motion judge’s disposition.

[2] We see no error in the motion judge’s interpretation and application of s. 17(a) of the Divorce Act. The motion judge was alive to the “maximum contact” goal of that section (see para. 230(1) of the reasons). The ultimate allocation of parenting time is consistent with the appellants’ own submission as to the amount of access that should be allotted to the non-custodial parent. The appellants, of course, made that submission on the assumption that they would be the custodial parents. They lost that argument.

[3] Mr. Joseph has demonstrated that the trial judge arguably made factual errors in his detailed reasons. These errors were, however, very minor and certainly do not reach the level of materiality required to constitute an “overriding” error.

[4] We see no basis to interfere with the cost order made at trial.

[5] The appeal is dismissed. Costs of the appeal to the respondent fixed at $13,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.