Court File and Parties
Citation: Parenteau v. Dekany, 2011 ONSC 6973 Divisional Court File No.: 482/11 Date: 2011-11-23
Ontario Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court
Before: Chapnik, Hockin and Hoy JJ.
Between:
Mark David Parenteau Applicant (Respondent in Appeal)
– and –
Katalin Dekany Respondent (Appellant)
Counsel: In Person In Person
Heard at Toronto: November 23, 2011
Oral Reasons for Judgment
Chapnik J. (orally)
[1] The appellant appeals the decision of R. J. Kaufman J. on the grounds that he erred in making several family law orders, including orders for equalization of property, spousal support and child support, as well as issues in respect of the matrimonial home and the claim of promissory estoppel brought by the appellant.
[2] She also claims the trial judge failed to afford her natural justice in making her argument. In that regard, he, for example, interrupted her, did not permit her to introduce medical reports (other than through her own testimony) and allotted each party thirty minutes for closing argument whereas she required more time.
[3] The appellant also claims the judge erred in failing to award her costs, in light of what she says was the respondent’s “unreasonable bad faith conduct” and the abuse she suffered in the marriage. The trial judge heard evidence in this matter over several days and gave his thirty page judgment orally.
[4] The record indicates that, being cognizant of the fact the parties were self-represented, he assisted each of them procedurally, in presenting their cases as he was obliged to do, and ensured that the procedure was fair to both parties. There was no failure of fundamental justice.
[5] The standard of review in this appeal is whether the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error in his findings of fact or made errors in law. (See Housen v. Nikolaisen 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235).
[6] The trial judge dealt with each of the family law issues in a cogent and correct fashion. We find he made no palpable or overriding errors in fact or in law. He did not misapprehend the evidence including the evidence in respect of the respondent’s income nor did he err in his application of the law to the facts.
[7] What the appellant is essentially attempting to do here is to reargue the case and in some instances to introduce new evidence without requesting leave to do so. There is no basis to interfere with the trial judge’s decision.
[8] We have noted the appellant’s concern with the trial judge’s order for step-down support. This was predicated on his finding that the appellant was not disabled from obtaining employment and, despite the long term and conventional marriage, was able to earn income.
[9] The trial judge imputed the appellant with an income of $10,000.00 per annum commencing November, 2012 and an income of $20,000.00 per annum commencing November 1, 2014, at which time support is reduced to $1,000.00 per month. Pursuant to the trial judge’s order changes in support payments may be ordered after July 1, 2013. Recourse is available to the appellant should the trial judge’s findings in regard to her ability to gain employment prove wrong or if circumstances otherwise change. Again, there is no basis to interfere with the trial judge’s conclusions, reasoning or findings of fact.
[10] In all of the circumstances, this appeal is dismissed without costs.
Chapnik J. Hockin J. Hoy J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 23, 2011 Date of Release: December 7, 2011
Citation: Parenteau v. Dekany, 2011 ONSC 6973 Divisional Court File No.: 482/11 Date: 2011-11-23
Ontario Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court
Chapnik, Hockin and Hoy JJ.
Between:
Mark David Parenteau Applicant (Respondent in Appeal)
– and –
Katalin Dekany Respondent (Appellant)
Oral Reasons for Judgment
Chapnik J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 23, 2011 Date of Release: December 7, 2011