Barbara Jean Hoekstra v. Donald Ralph Hoekstra, 2009 ONCA 358

1The appellant, Barbara Hoekstra, appeals the order of Ramsay J. dated March 7, 2008, denying the appellant spousal support.

2The parties were married for 32 years. They have four adult daughters, two of whom have special needs.

3The trial judge found that, after equalization, the appellant had a net worth of approximately $1.4 million. He concluded that the standard of living within reach of each party on his or her own efforts was approximately equal. The parties’ ability to maintain their pre-divorce lifestyle had diminished not because of the divorce, but because the respondent lost his job. Considering the factors in s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act against the evidence presented at trial, the trial judge held that spousal support for the appellant was not called for.

4The appellant contends that the trial judge’s reasons are insufficient, that he failed to make relevant factual findings, that he misapprehended the evidence, and that, ultimately, he erred by not awarding spousal support to her.

5We disagree. The trial judge explicitly referred to s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act and the leading cases dealing with its interpretation: Moge (1992), Bracklow (1999) and Miglin (2003). He noted that the appellant lives in a six-bedroom home with her new husband, has living expenses of about $4800 per month, has a Master’s degree in landscape architecture, and “could work and earn more money”. We see no basis for interfering with these findings and the legal conclusion – no spousal support – that flowed from them.

6The appeal is dismissed. The respondent, generously, seeks no order for costs.