T.K. v. R.J.H.A., 2015 BCCA 8

• Judge: Levine, D. Smith and Stromberg-Stein, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: September 30, 2014
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2015 BCCA 8;(2015), 367 B.C.A.C. 21 (CA)

T.K. v. R.J.H.A. (2015), 367 B.C.A.C. 21 (CA);

    631 W.A.C. 21

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JA.044

T.K. (appellant/claimant) v. R.J.H.A. (respondent/respondent)

(CA041439; 2015 BCCA 8)

Indexed As: T.K. v. R.J.H.A.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Levine, D. Smith and Stromberg-Stein, JJ.A.

January 13, 2015.

Summary:

The mother's petition for divorce included a request for an order allowing her to relocate with the parties' two children from British Columbia to Ontario.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 2112, granted the divorce and divided the family assets by consent. The court determined that it was in the children's best interests to remain in British Columbia. The parties were granted joint custody with equal shared residency. The court awarded child support based on the shared custody arrangement, including imputation of income to the mother, who had been working part-time as a veterinarian. The father was awarded costs, which were assessed at approximately $54,000. The mother appealed the refusal of her request for permission to relocate with the children, the imputation of income and the award of costs to the father. At the hearing of the appeal, the mother requested an order staying the order of costs, pending the decision on the appeal. The request was dismissed orally. The mother applied for an order staying the order of costs.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Bennett, J.A., in a decision reported at (2014), 364 B.C.A.C. 13; 625 W.A.C. 13, allowed the application on the condition that the full amount of the costs was paid into court pending the appeal's outcome.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Family Law - Topic 1881

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Welfare or best interests of child paramount - See paragraphs 44 to 79.

Family Law - Topic 1887.1

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Child's cultural heritage - See paragraphs 44 to 79.

Family Law - Topic 1895

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Changing child's residence - See paragraphs 44 to 79.

Family Law - Topic 1897

Custody and access - Considerations in awarding custody - Status quo - See paragraphs 44 to 79.

Family Law - Topic 1916

Custody and access - Appeals - Standard of review - See paragraph 43.

Family Law - Topic 2073

Custody and access - Joint custody - Considerations - See paragraphs 44 to 79.

Family Law - Topic 2082

Custody and access - Shared parenting - Considerations (incl. best interests of the child) - See paragraphs 44 to 79.

Family Law - Topic 2189

Custody and access - Practice - Costs - See paragraphs 85 and 86.

Family Law - Topic 4045.5

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Child support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Calculation or attribution of income - See paragraphs 80 to 84.

Cases Noticed:

Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27; 196 N.R. 321; 141 Sask.R. 241; 114 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 5].

S.S.L. v. J.W.W. (2010), 284 B.C.A.C. 27; 481 W.A.C. 27; 2010 BCCA 55, refd to. [para. 24].

Garcia v. Crestbrook Forest Industries Ltd. (No. 2) (1994), 45 B.C.A.C. 222; 72 W.A.C. 222; 9 B.C.L.R.(3d) 242 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

R.E.Q. v. G.J.K. (2012), 319 B.C.A.C. 98; 542 W.A.C. 98; 2012 BCCA 146, refd to. [para. 43].

Nunweiler v. Nunweiler (2000), 137 B.C.A.C. 1; 223 W.A.C. 1; 2000 BCCA 300, refd to. [para. 47].

Falvai v. Falvai (2008), 263 B.C.A.C. 74; 443 W.A.C. 74; 2008 BCCA 503, refd to. [para. 47].

Hejzlar v. Mitchell-Hejzlar (2011), 304 B.C.A.C. 305; 513 W.A.C. 305; 2011 BCCA 230, refd to. [para. 47].

Stav v. Stav (2012), 319 B.C.A.C. 184; 542 W.A.C. 184; 2012 BCCA 154, refd to. [para. 55].

Robinson v. Filyk (1996), 84 B.C.A.C. 290; 137 W.A.C. 290; 28 B.C.L.R.(3d) 21 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

K.V.P. v. T.E. (2001), 275 N.R. 52; 156 B.C.A.C. 161; 255 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 60, refd to. [para. 73].

S.J.C. v. S.-J.C.A. (2010), 283 B.C.A.C. 62; 480 W.A.C. 62; 2010 BCCA 31, refd to. [para. 86].

Reis v. Bucholtz, [2010] B.C.A.C. Uned. 10; 3 B.C.L.R.(5th) 71; 2010 BCCA 115, refd to. [para. 86].

Counsel:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf;

Robert S. Gill, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Victoria, B.C., on September 30, 2014, by Levine, D. Smith and Stromberg-Stein, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. On January 13, 2015, D. Smith, J.A., delivered the following written reasons for judgment for the court.