COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: CLIFFORD RACINE (Applicant/Respondent in Appeal) – and – MAY RACINE (Respondent/Appellant in Appeal)
BEFORE: LASKIN, ARMSTRONG and BLAIR JJ.A.
COUNSEL: May Racine in person Justin Ellery for the respondent
HEARD: December 5, 2003
RELEASED ORALLY: December 5, 2003
On appeal from the order of Justice Robert P. Boissonneault of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 11, 2002.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1Mrs. Racine has several complaints about the order of Boissoneault J. and other complaints that are not pertinent to this appeal. However, we can find no basis for interfering with the decision except to make a conceded adjustment to the equalization amount.
2Mrs. Racine maintains that the 1979 agreement between her and her husband should be recognized as binding. That is not the issue. It is binding. The issue is whether the 1979 agreement operates to exclude the matrimonial home from the calculation of the equalization payment. It does not, given its language and the law as expressed by this court in Bosch v. Bosch. Secondly, Mrs. Racine firmly believes that her husband has won a considerable sum in the lottery, which should have been taken into account, but there was no evidence before the applications judge supporting that claim and it is based on speculation.
1Mrs. Racine pointed out in her materials, and Mr. Ellery acknowledges, that there was a double count in the calculation concerning one vehicle and therefore, the equalization must be reduced by $10,500. In other respects though, Mrs. Racine’s complaints do not provide a basis for interfering with the order.
2The equalization payment is therefore reduced by $10,500 but in all other respects, the appeal is dismissed. The respondent is entitled to his costs of the appeal, fixed at $2,500.
“J.I. Laskin J.A.”
“R.P. Armstrong J.A.”
“R.A. Blair J.A.”