Case information

Family law — Principles and framework to be used by trial courts in assessing best interests of child in cases involving family violence — Whether trial judge erred in assessing evidence of family violence — Whether trial judge erred in refusing request to relocate, ordering equal parenting time or granting respondent sole decision-making on medical and educational issues — Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), s. 16(3)(j) and (4).

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The parties began cohabiting in 2001 and married in 2003. They lived in New Brunswick for a year before moving to Toronto in 2008. Mr. Kohli was the primary income earner and Ms. Thom worked minimum wage jobs until 2011. By 2018, when their child was born, the relationship was breaking down. In September 2019, when the child was 16 months old, Ms. Thom expressed her intention to separate. When Ms. Thom said that she was returning to her family in New Brunswick with the child, Mr. Kohli left with the child, having told the police that he was doing so in response to Ms. Thom’s decision. Ms. Thom reported historical abuse to the police and Mr. Kohli was charged with offences including assault and uttering threats. The charges were withdrawn when he entered into a peace bond. The child was returned to Ms. Thom’s care. Both parties gave evidence of an abusive and sometimes violent relationship. Ms. Thom alleged physical, verbal and mental abuse throughout the marriage. In 2019 and 2020, the Children’s Aid Society did full investigations following police complaints. The parties agreed that there had been no violence since separation, but disagreed about the current state of the relationship.

At trial, both parties were self-represented. Inter alia, the trial judge deferred Ms. Thom’s claim for damages for family violence, ordered that parenting time to be split equally on a 2/2/3 schedule and that Mr. Kohli to have final decision-making responsibility over child’s health care and education, and dismissed Ms. Thom’s request for a relocation order. He imputed income to Ms. Thom and Mr. Kohli and assessed child and spousal support accordingly. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the trial judge had erred in imputing income to Ms. Thom without considering the impact of the family violence on her employability. It reassessed child and spousal support on the basis of that decision.