Law360 Canada ( January 26, 2026, 9:39 AM EST) -- Appeal by Naim from a parenting, relocation and child support order following a streamlined trial. The parties had two children, an eight-year-old son diagnosed with autism and a seven-year-old daughter. Zawawi, the mother, is a pharmacist with a guideline income of $120,000. Naim previously earned between $100,375 and $163,656 working in car sales but left his position in 2023 to start a wholesale vehicle business, reporting no income at trial. The trial judge imputed income to him at $100,000. The trial addressed parenting time, mobility and child support. The trial judge ordered joint decision-making for major issues, primary residence with Zawawi, generous parenting time for Naim during school breaks and FaceTime contact. Zawawi was permitted to relocate with the children to Surrey, B.C. Naim was ordered to pay $1,458 per month in child support and 45 per cent of s. 7 expenses. Travel arrangements for parenting time were allocated between the parties. On appeal, Naim argued the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons, misapprehended evidence, erred in applying s. 16(3) rather than ss. 16.92 and 16.93 of the Divorce Act for relocation, wrongly imputed income and failed to conduct an undue hardship analysis under s. 10 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines. He also challenged the inclusion of police enforcement provisions in the order....