COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
LAMPRON, JACQUES (Applicant/Appellant) – and – LAURA LAMPRON (Respondent)
BEFORE:
MACPHERSON, CRONK and LANG JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Jacques Lampron
the appellant – in-person
Laura Lampron
the respondent – in-person
HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY:
January 18, 2005
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Robert J. Smith of the Superior Court of Justice dated December 16, 2003 and amended June 18, 2004.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1The appellant, Jacques Lampron, appeals from the judgment of Justice Robert J. Smith dated December 16, 2003, as amended on June 18, 2004. In the judgment, which followed a 13‑day trial, the trial judge dealt in a comprehensive fashion with a wide range of matrimonial issues – child custody and access, child and spousal support, division of property and equalization.
2The appellant appeals two components of the judgment.
3First, the appellant contends that the trial judge erred in not including an $81,000 investment, which the respondent allegedly concealed, in the respondent’s property at the date of separation.
4We disagree. It is clear from the trial judge’s original and amended reasons that he intended to include the trusts for the children in the wife’s property. All the trial judge did in his amended reasons was change the amount of the calculation from $99,000 to $75,000 to reflect the evidence that established the precise amounts of those trusts.
5In the amended reasons, the trial judge explicitly rejected the existence of a concealed investment on the wife’s side of the ledger. There is nothing in his original reasons to suggest that he had a different view about, or made a different disposition concerning, this issue in those reasons.
6The appellant also contends that the trial judge erred by not awarding occupation rent to him for the respondent’s continuing occupation of the matrimonial home.
7We disagree. Section 24(1) of the Family Law Act gives a trial judge a discretion on this issue. We can see no error in the trial judge’s reasons for refusing to make such an order in this case.
8The appeal is dismissed.
“J. C. MacPherson J.A.”
“E. A. Cronk J.A.”
“S. E. Lang J.A.”
