Law360 Canada ( August 7, 2019, 8:03 AM EDT) -- Appeal by the wife from a trial decision respecting mobility, spousal support and division of property. The parties married in 2003 and separated in 2012. They had three children aged 14, 12 and 10 at the time of trial. The husband worked on his parents’ farm throughout the marriage. The wife did not work outside the home throughout most of the marriage. After the separation, she assumed part-time work with a local playschool but did not seek any other employment opportunities. The parties enjoyed a cooperative parenting arrangement after separation. The trial judge refused to permit the wife to move with the children 245 kilometres away so she could pursue her relationship with a new man. The trial judge concluded it was not in the children’s best interests to move with their mother as they were thriving in the care of two dedicated parents and were closely connected to their parents, extended family and their community. The trial judge rejected the wife’s assertion that the Hillis Half, the Oblander Quarter and selected farm machinery were either legally or beneficially owned by the husband but held that at the time of separation, the farm equipment was held as part of a farming partnership with his parents. For purposes of determining the amount of child and spousal support, the trial judge imputed an annual income to the wife of $22,298, equivalent to the annual salary of a minimum wage job. His decision to impute income to the wife was based on the husband’s uncontradicted statement about the availability of retail jobs in the area. The trial judge expressed concern over the apparent lack of effort on the wife’s part to achieve self-sufficiency and fixed the duration of spousal support at six and one-half years, less the four and one-half years the husband had already paid support. The wife disputed the income imputed to her and the duration of spousal support....