COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
KIRK MICHAEL JAMES MATHEW CORMIER (Respondent (Appellant in appeal))– and – DONNA MARIE BOUDREAU (Applicant (Respondent in appeal))
BEFORE:
ROSENBERG, GOUDGE and CRONK JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Kirk Michael James Cormier
In person
Garth Whitford
for the respondent
HEARD & ENDORSED:
January 6, 2004
On appeal from the order of Justice Sherril M. Rogers of the Superior Court of Justice dated April 15, 2003
A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T
1The appellant appeals against virtually all aspects of the trial judge’s judgment. He submits that the trial judge made various errors of law, erred in the exercise of her discretion and misapprehended the evidence. The appellant has not provided a transcript of the trial and makes his argument largely on the basis of excerpts from various exhibits.
2The trial judge made findings of fact, which on this record, support her legal conclusions; for example, imputing income to the appellant and finding that this was a traditional marriage. There was therefore a basis for the orders of child support and spousal support. Also given the findings of fact, we cannot say that the trial judge erred in the way that she dealt with the equalization payment and the transfer of the RRSP’s.
3With respect to costs, the trial judge gave reasons for the order she made. This court will interfere if there has been an error in principle. We do not see any such error.
4In his factum, the appellant also challenged the custody order. On this record, the only appropriate order was the one made by the trial judge.
5The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs fixed at $3,000 plus disbursements and GST.