COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
KATHLEEN ANNE SYDOR (Applicant/Respondent in Appeal) v. PETER MYTRO SYDOR (Respondent/Appellant in Appeal)
BEFORE:
DOHERTY, MACPHERSON and CRONK JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
John Spears
for the appellant
L. Fedak
for the respondent
HEARD & ENDORSED:
July 8, 2005
On appeal from the order of Justice Raymond Harris of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 4, 2004.
A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T
1We see no basis upon which we can interfere with the judgment of the trial judge. The custody ruling was predicated on findings of fact which were supported by the evidence. The findings with respect to the inheritance and the use of part of the money to repay the “family” debt were once again consistent with the evidence.
2We are troubled by the requirement that the appellant is required to pay all of the extraordinary expenses while the respondent effectively determines what those expenses will be. The order was made in the context of extraordinary expenses that were relatively modest (less than $1,000.00). Were those expenses to increase significantly, a variation application would be appropriate. However, given the current level of expenses, we are not prepared to interfere. With respect to the valuation of the vehicle brought into the marriage, the trial judge’s modest valuation was entirely appropriate.
3We see no basis for interfering with the spousal support order.
4The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $5,500.00, inclusive of disbursements and GST.