K.W. v. L.H.

K.W. v. L.H.

The Court of Appeal held that an initial relocation application for parenting arrangements is governed by Division 2 (s.46) of the Family Law Act even if interim orders are made after notice of relocation; applying the correct Division 2 blended best-interests analysis, relocation to Nova Scotia was permitted as being in the child's best interests; the father's 2016 corporate pre-tax income from Westmore was attributable to his Guideline income for child support, resulting in retroactive arrears; mother entitled to half of claimed daycare expenses and her share of s.211 report costs; disclosure and procedural orders were required to finalize support going forward.

Citation
2018 BCCA 204
Parties
Appellant (mother): K.W.; Respondent (father): L.H.
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Family Law Relocation and Child Support / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Supreme Court of British Columbia Trial Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part. Trial decision set aside on relocation and child support issues; relocation permitted; various support, disclosure and cost orders made.
Legal Topics
Relocation Application, Division 2 Vs Division 6 of the Family Law Act, Best Interests of the Child, Imputation of Corporate Income (s.18 Guidelines), S.211 Family Report Costs, Daycare Expense Entitlement, Retroactive Child Support
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Custody Relocation Child Support Family Violence Appeal Relocation Application Division 2 Vs Division 6 of the Family Law Act +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K.W.

Appellant (mother)

L.H.

Respondent (father)

Procedural Posture

Family Law Relocation and Child Support / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Supreme Court of British Columbia Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an initial relocation application is governed by Division 2 (s.46) or Division 6 (ss.65/69) of the Family Law Act
  2. 2 Whether interim orders made after notice of relocation transfer the dispute into Division 6
  3. 3 Whether the proposed relocation is in the child's best interests

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that an initial relocation application for parenting arrangements is governed by Division 2 (s.46) of the Family Law Act even if interim orders are made after notice of relocation; applying the correct Division 2 blended best-interests analysis, relocation to Nova Scotia was permitted as being in the child's best interests; the father's 2016 corporate pre-tax income from Westmore was attributable to his Guideline income for child support, resulting in retroactive arrears; mother entitled to half of claimed daycare expenses and her share of s.211 report costs; disclosure and procedural orders were required to finalize support going forward.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part. Trial decision set aside on relocation and child support issues; relocation permitted; various support, disclosure and cost orders made.

Orders

  • Parties are joint guardians of the child N
  • N's primary residence is with the Mother and Mother is permitted to relocate with N to Nova Scotia