Court of Appeal for Ontario
Before: Doherty, Goudge and Hoy JJ.A.
Between
Brenda Lea Perino
Applicant (Respondent)
and
Vito Perino
Respondent (Appellant)
Counsel:
Sandra Majic, for the appellant
Brenda Lea Perino, acting in person
Ian R. Mang, for the child
Heard and released orally: December 13, 2012
On appeal from the order of Justice David Corbett of the Superior Court of Justice, dated January 12, 2012.
ENDORSEMENT
1The appellant appeals the spousal support he was ordered to pay the respondent. His primary submission is that the trial judge erred in imputing income to him.
2This court does not overturn support orders unless the reasons disclose an error in principle, a significant misapprehension of the evidence or unless the award is clearly wrong. We are not persuaded that the appellant has made out any basis warranting this court’s interference with the trial judge’s order.
3The trial judge provided cogent reasons for imputing the income that he did to the appellant. The trial judge found that the appellant misrepresented his income and that it was higher than indicated. He gave reasons for that finding, which, in our view, are not open to successful appellate review. The trial judge properly included the value of services provided by the appellant in barter in the appellant’s income.
4The appellant also takes issue with the trial judge’s finding that this was an extreme case of parental alienation by the appellant because that finding, in part, underlay his conclusion that the appellant was intentionally under employed. The trial judge found that the appellant made a choice to exclude the respondent, who had theretofore cared for their daughter, and then work less as a consequence of caring for their daughter. The appellant has not established that the trial judge’s finding of parental alienation amounted to a palpable and overriding error. There is, therefore, no basis to challenge the trial judge’s imputation of income on that basis.
5Nor are we persuaded that the trial judge’s decision to impute income to the respondent on the basis of a 30-hour work week at $10 per hour as opposed to some greater number of hours at $10.25 per hour warrants interference.
6Finally, the appellant takes issue with the fact that the trial judge did not fix a sunset date for the procedures he established to monitor the respondent’s access to the daughter. The trial judge contemplated that the parties’ daughter, who at present is unable to live independently and is therefore a child of the marriage, may in the future be able to live independently. When appropriate, it is open to the parties to appear before the Superior Court to seek a sunset date.
7The appeal is dismissed, with costs fixed in the amount of $5,000, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.
“Doherty J.A.”
“S.T. Goudge J.A.”
“Alexandra Hoy J.A.”