Sohal v. Bhatthal: Relocation & Imputed Income Ontario

In Sohal v. Bhatthal, the Court of Appeal upheld relocation findings, $400,000 in imputed income, and refusal of a $150,000 date-of-marriage deduction.

By Vaneet Sangha, Co-founder, OMNI LAW GROUP

In This Guide

• What the Court of Appeal decided

• How relocation notice was treated

• Why stability and primary caregiving mattered

• Why $400,000 in income was imputed

• Why the property deduction failed

• What the decision means for Orangeville and Dufferin County families

What happened in Sohal v. Bhatthal?

Sohal v. Bhatthal, 2026 ONCA 688, was released on September 28, 2026.

The appeal was heard and rendered orally on September 24, 2026.

The panel consisted of van Rensburg, Miller and Monahan JJ.A.

The appeal arose from a final order after a 12-day trial before Kril J. The trial decision was reported as 2025 ONSC 3897. The Court of Appeal file was COA-25-CV-1094.

The appeal was dismissed.

Costs to the respondent were fixed at $13,000, all-inclusive.

The appeal addressed relocation, parenting, support, income imputation and equalization. Para. 1 addresses the procedural background, the panel, the 12-day trial and the three grounds of appeal. Para. 7 records the disposition and costs award of $13,000.

Did the Court of Appeal uphold the relocation decision?

Yes.

The father argued that the trial judge failed to consider the mother’s non-compliance with the section 16.9 notice requirements under the Divorce Act.

He also argued that the trial judge failed to make specific findings about family violence.

He further argued that the trial judge gave primacy to a status quo created by the respondent’s misconduct.

The Court of Appeal rejected those arguments.

The trial judge had addressed the unilateral relocation. She applied the correct principles. She found the relocation reasonable because the mother was experiencing family violence.

The trial judge did not expressly cite section 16.9. That omission did not establish an error.

The trial judge had recited both parties’ narratives. She was not required to itemize every specific act of violence.

Paras. 2-3 address the section 16.9 notice, relocation and family-violence arguments and explain why the Court of Appeal rejected them. Para. 3 also addresses stability, primary caregiving and the complaint about status quo.

The practical point is important.

Section 16.9 notice remains mandatory. The court’s analysis, however, is not treated as a simple check-box exercise. The full factual record matters.

A relocation analysis can turn on family violence, the child’s best interests, stability and the evidence before the court. Expressly naming every statutory provision is not the same as applying the wrong legal test.

That does not mean notice can be ignored. Relocation planning should address the statutory requirements, the proposed parenting arrangements and any safety concerns.

How did stability and primary caregiving affect the result?

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge’s focus on stability.

The mother had been the child’s primary caregiver for the child’s whole life.

The trial judge also considered the disruption that would result from moving the child into the father’s home with sole decision-making authority.

The Court of Appeal did not interfere with that reasoning. Para. 3 is the key pinpoint for stability and primary caregiving.

This part of the decision shows why relocation cases require more than a comparison of residences. The court considers the child’s established care history, the likely disruption and the practical effect of a proposed change.

For families in Orangeville, Dufferin County and surrounding communities, relocation evidence should be organized carefully. Relevant material can include parenting records, school information, health information, communication records and evidence addressing family violence.

The legal question remains fact-specific.

Why did the Court uphold $400,000 in imputed income?

The trial judge imputed annual income of $400,000 based on intentional underemployment.

The Court of Appeal upheld that finding.

The father argued that he had left a well-paying salaried position to grow a struggling new business.

The trial judge rejected that narrative.

She found that joining his “extremely” successful father had proved as lucrative as expected. She also found that the father had simply not re-entered the workforce.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge’s reasoning was reasonable. Paras. 4-5 address the $400,000 imputation and the intentional-underemployment analysis.

The practical lesson is direct. Income analysis is not limited to current pay statements. A court may examine work history, earning capacity, business circumstances and the explanation for reduced employment.

This issue matters in high net worth divorce cases in Orangeville and Dufferin County. It can affect child support, spousal support and the overall financial analysis.

Justice Canada provides the official 2025 simplified child support tables and a 2025 child support table look-up tool.

The 2025 Federal Child Support Guidelines tables took effect on October 1, 2025, and remain in force during 2026.

Why was the $150,000 date-of-marriage deduction refused?

The father sought a $150,000 deduction for the Upper Gage property.

The property had been sold one month before the marriage.

The mother’s evidence was that the father had never disclosed owning property before the marriage.

The father failed to meet his onus. The lack of documentation was part of the problem.

The Court of Appeal upheld the refusal of the deduction. Para. 6 addresses the refusal of the $150,000 date-of-marriage deduction and the onus problem.

The decision reinforces a core equalization principle. A claimed pre-marriage asset requires evidence.

Documents matter.

Property records, closing documents, bank records, tax documents, valuation material and clear disclosure can affect the analysis. The absence of those records can affect the result.

This is particularly important where a separation involves real estate, business interests, rural acreage or other substantial assets. A Dufferin County family law file may involve property histories that require careful documentation from the beginning.

What should Ontario families take from the decision?

Three practical points stand out.

1. Relocation notice must be treated seriously

Section 16.9 creates a mandatory notice framework.

The decision does not remove that requirement.

It shows that a court may assess the substance of the relocation evidence. Family violence, stability and the child’s established care arrangements can be central.

A missing express citation to section 16.9 is not automatically reversible error where the correct principles were applied.

2. Income evidence must be complete

A court may assess whether reported income reflects actual earning capacity.

Business explanations should be supported by records. Employment decisions should be documented. Financial disclosure should be complete and consistent.

3. Equalization claims require proof

A deduction is not established by assertion alone.

The party advancing the deduction must provide evidence. Missing records can prevent the court from accepting the claimed amount.

How does this apply in Orangeville and Dufferin County?

OMNI LAW GROUP’s Orangeville office is located at:

162 Broadway, Suite 8
Orangeville, ON L9W 1K3

The office serves Orangeville, Dufferin County, Caledon, Bolton, Alton, Shelburne and Mono.

There is no current Brampton office. Peel matters are served from the Orangeville base.

Peel Region court matters are processed at the A. Grenville & William Davis Courthouse at 7755 Hurontario Street in Brampton. Client preparation, document signing and strategy sessions occur in Orangeville or through virtual appointments.

Clients attending the Orangeville Courthouse at 10 Louisa Street or the Davis Courthouse should plan for courthouse screening and security lines.

OMNI LAW GROUP handles family-law matters heard at the A. Grenville & William Davis Courthouse in Brampton.

Our team focuses on the intersection of Criminal Defence & Family Law when related legal issues arise.

A family court order does not override criminal release terms, bail conditions or no-contact conditions.

Separate legal analysis may be required.

Families looking for a Family Lawyer in Brampton are served from the Orangeville base.

Individuals seeking a Criminal Defence Lawyer in Orangeville can contact the firm about the separate criminal-law issues involved.

Consultation and legal safeguards

OMNI LAW GROUP conducts a conflict check and confirms the scope of any retainer before acting.

The firm will not act for both sides of a dispute.

Where family and criminal matters overlap, separate retainers may be required.

This content is general legal information only. It is not legal advice. Reading it does not create a solicitor-client relationship.

Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.

For an initial consultation at the Orangeville office, call 905-497-7200.

Local Legal FAQ

Does section 16.9 notice decide a child relocation case in Ontario?

Section 16.9 notice is mandatory, but Sohal v. Bhatthal shows that the analysis is not treated as a simple check-box exercise. The court examines the relocation evidence as a whole. In that case, the trial judge addressed the unilateral move, considered the parties’ narratives and found the relocation reasonable because the mother was experiencing family violence. The trial judge did not expressly cite section 16.9, but the Court of Appeal found no reversible error. Notice requirements should still be addressed carefully, with supporting evidence about the proposed move, parenting arrangements, stability and safety concerns.

Can Ontario courts impute income when a parent leaves employment?

Ontario courts may impute income where the evidence supports intentional underemployment. In Sohal v. Bhatthal, the Court of Appeal upheld annual imputed income of $400,000. The trial judge rejected the explanation that the father had left a well-paying salaried role to build a struggling business. The trial judge found that working with his extremely successful father had been as lucrative as expected, and that he had simply not re-entered the workforce. The result turned on the trial evidence and should not be treated as an automatic formula for every case.

Why do disclosure documents matter in equalization claims?

Disclosure documents help establish whether a claimed asset, value or deduction can be proven. In Sohal v. Bhatthal, the father sought a $150,000 deduction for the Upper Gage property, which had sold one month before the marriage. The mother said the property had never been disclosed before marriage. The father did not meet his onus, in part because documentation was lacking. Property records, transaction documents, financial statements and evidence of ownership should be preserved when equalization is in issue.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Vaneet Sangha is Co-founder of OMNI LAW GROUP. Vaneet Sangha is a member of the Law Society of Ontario and works with clients addressing family law, parenting, support, relocation and financial disclosure issues in Orangeville, Dufferin County and Peel Region.

For a consultation at 162 Broadway, Suite 8, Orangeville, ON L9W 1K3, call 905-497-7200.