COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
MacPherson, Cronk and Gillese JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Angela Annette Karges
Applicant (Respondent)
and
Kevin David Karges
Respondent (Appellant)
Tracy Miller, for the appellant
Michelle Dwyer, for the respondent
Heard and released orally: February 26, 2014
On appeal from the order of Justice Silja S. Seppi of the Superior Court of Justice, dated October 1, 2012.
ENDORSEMENT
1The appellant Kevin Karges appeals from the Order of Seppi J. of the Superior Court of Justice dated October 1, 2012, in matrimonial proceedings relating to, inter alia, custody, child and spousal support, and equalization of net family property.
2The appellant contends that, against the backdrop of a consent joint custody order, the trial judge erred by designating the respondent’s home as the children’s primary residence and by ordering unequal periods of access to the parents.
3We do not accept this submission. The trial judge carefully reviewed the evidence of the parties and the court appointed assessor, Dr. Butkowsky. Her decision on the primary residence issue is fully supported by the record, as is her allocation of access time to both parents. In reaching this decision, we are mindful of this court’s limited role in reviewing custody and access decisions: see Van de Perre v. Edwards, 2001 SCC 60, at paras. 12-13.
4The appellant asserts that the trial judge erred in her child and spousal support orders.
5We disagree. If anything, the trial judge’s imputation of the respondent’s income ($30,000, even though her actual income in the preceding year was $12,513) was generous to the appellant. Moreover, the evidence at trial strongly supported the trial judge’s conclusions that the respondent had a demonstrated need and the appellant had an ability to pay. As well, the trial judge stated that a review could be initiated commencing January, 2015.
6Finally, we see no error in the trial judge’s calculation of equalization, especially in the context of a small number of items and the amounts in issue.
7In short, the trial judge provided a comprehensive and sensible analysis and disposition in what appears to have been a high conflict matrimonial case. The appeal is dismissed.
8In light of this disposition, it is not necessary to consider the appellant’s costs appeal.
9The respondent is entitled to her costs of the appeal fixed at $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST. It is ordered that this amount be paid to the respondent from the money currently held in court as security for costs and the remainder paid to the appellant’s counsel in trust.
“J.C. MacPherson J.A.”
“E.A. Cronk J.A.”
“E.E. Gillese J.A.”