Sodhi v. Sodhi

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Judge: McMurtry, C.J.O., Charron and Moldaver, JJ.A.
• Citation: (2002), 158 O.A.C. 83 (CA)
• Date: 20 February 2002
• Subject Matter: FAMILY LAW

Sodhi v. Sodhi (2002), 158 O.A.C. 83 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] O.A.C. TBEd. AP.046

Raoul Sodhi (appellant/respondent in cross-appeal) v. Caroline Sodhi (respondent/appellant in cross-appeal)

(C34127)

Indexed As: Sodhi v. Sodhi

Ontario Court of Appeal

McMurtry, C.J.O., Charron and  Moldaver, JJ.A.

April 18, 2002.

Summary:

Following a trial, judgment was rendered on the issues of custody, access, child support, spousal support, equalization of net family property and costs. The husband/father appealed the judgment on all of those issues. The wife/mother cross-appealed from that part of the judgment that required her, in order to retain custody of her children, to move to Ottawa from her present residence in Stoney Creek.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-appeal.

Family Law - Topic 1809

Custody and access - Recommendation that parent relocate as a condition precedent to obtaining custody - The mother, who had interim custody, unilaterally and without notice to the father, moved with the children from Ottawa to Stoney Creek - The trial judge awarded custody to the mother with generous access to the father, provided that the mother move back to Ottawa with the children - If the mother failed to move back to Ottawa, the trial judge awarded custody to the father with generous access to the mother - The Ontario Court of Appeal deleted both the condition that the mother return to Ottawa and the default custody order to the father - The trial judge's conclusion that the mother could be easily reassigned to Ottawa was not supported by the evidence - The trial judge also failed to consider the impact of uprooting the children from their lives in Stoney Creek where they had been living for one year - Finally, the default custody order awarding custody to the father appeared inconsistent with the trial judge's conclusion that it was in the children's best interests to remain in the mother's custody.

Counsel:

Jeffrey Langevin, for the appellant;

Philip M. Epstein, Q.C. and Ilana I. Zylberman, for the respondent.

This appeal and cross-appeal were heard on February 20, 2002, before McMurtry, C.J.O., Charron and Moldaver, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Charron, J.A., and was released on April 18, 2002.