Court of Appeal for Ontario
Before: Weiler, Blair and van Rensburg JJ.A.
Between:
Ranjit Narayanan Applicant (Respondent to the Appeal)
and
Lalita Padathe Respondent (Appellant)
Counsel: Lalita Padathe, acting in person Tilda M. Roll and Bryan J. Marco, for the respondent
Heard: September 22, 2016
On appeal from the judgment of Justice J. Patrick Moore of the Superior Court of Justice, dated March 21, 2016.
Appeal Book Endorsement
1The appellant’s motion to change brought in May, 2014, requesting spousal support on the basis of a change in circumstances was dismissed by way of summary judgment. Instead, the court gave effect to an August 18, 2011 consent final order that spousal support would be terminated on February 1, 2014, six months after the appellant’s expected completion of her studies at the end of August, 2013.
2On appeal, the appellant raises four interrelated grounds of appeal: 1) the motions judge incorrectly ruled third party letters from her family physician and school were inadmissible, 2) incorrectly placed the onus on the appellant to adduce expert evidence, 3) erred in finding the claim was “statute-barred” in the sense that it did not comply with the requirements of s. 17(10) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), and 4) failed to accord procedural fairness to her.
3We would not give effect to the appellant’s submissions. Even if the medical and other evidence put forward by the appellant is admitted, that evidence does not meet the requirements of s. 17(10) of the Divorce Act. In particular, there is no evidence that the alleged worsening of the appellant’s medical condition which affected her functioning at the university is related to the marriage. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
4Costs of the appeal to the respondent fixed in the amount of $3,000 all inclusive.