The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding child and spousal support, custody and mobility, and equalization.
The appellant argued the trial judge erred in calculating his income, allowing the respondent to relocate to New York with the children, discounting family loans for equalization purposes, and managing the trial proceedings.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings, application of the mobility test, or valuation of the debts.
The court also held that while the trial judge erred in restricting cross-examination on an expert report, it did not deprive the appellant of a fair trial.