Ward v. Kemp, 2007 ONCA 707

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

1We do not accept the appellant’s submission that reasons of the trial judge and the Superior Court appeal judge were purely conclusory and tautological. While the trial judge’s reasons were framed along the lines of a parental lecture, they were adequate in the circumstances of this case. The trial judge faced a difficult decision on whether joint or sole custody was appropriate. He assessed the parenting skills and plans of the parties. He expressed concern about the appellant’s anger, immaturity, lack of self-esteem and limited effort to find employment. He assessed the nature of the parties’ relationship and lack of cooperation and concluded that joint custody was not workable. We do not agree that he reached that conclusion solely on the basis that the parties were not living together and, in any event, we agree with the Superior Court judge that on this record, there is no basis to interfere with the trial judge’s decision awarding sole custody to the respondent with generous access to the appellant. To the extent the appellant seeks to vary the terms of access, this is not the appropriate court.

2We see no error in the Superior Court judge’s costs award. Although the appellant succeeded in making a minor variation, he was essentially unsuccessful on the appeal.

3Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent fixed at $3,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.