COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

DATE: 20001115

DOCKET: C31389

RE: GUY LACHAPELLE (Plaintiff/Appellant)

v. LYDIA LACHAPELLE (Defendant/Respondent)

BEFORE: LABROSSE, CHARRON and SHARPE JJ.A.

COUNSEL: Guy Lachapelle,

the appellant, in person

D. Smith,

for the respondent

HEARD: November 14, 2000

On appeal from the decision of Justice Patrick R. T. Gravely dated December 18, 1998

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] This is an appeal from the judgment of Gravely J., dated December 18, 1998, which was granted after nine days of trial of a matrimonial dispute. (For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as the “husband” and the “wife”.) The husband represented himself at trial and on this appeal and his failure, at times, to understand the court process did not facilitate the conduct of the proceedings.

[2] The issues at trial included custody and access, equalization, and support. The husband spent a great deal of time trying to establish the wife’s blameworthiness for the breakdown of the marriage. Fault was of no relevance to the issues. His theme at trial and on the appeal was that only he told the truth and everything that happened was all her fault.

[3] The trial judge awarded custody of the children to the wife with reasonable access to the husband, determined the equalization payment, and awarded the wife support for the children. He did not award support to the wife, but left this issue open to be determined at a later date.

[4] On this appeal, the husband raises numerous issues which include that the trial judge was unfair and demonstrated bias against him, the conduct of the wife’s counsel, the failure to deal with and to admit evidence of interlocutory proceedings, the failure on the part of the trial judge to understand the issues, the failure to interview the children, erroneous findings of credibility and an improper award of costs.

[5] In our view, this appeal has no merit. It is nothing more than an attempt to retry the case. We will address only a few of the complaints that have been made.

[6] All complaints made against the trial judge are groundless. The trial judge explained the conduct of the trial to the husband and repeatedly attempted to guide him in the presentation of his case. The trial judge’s conduct during this lengthy trial is commendable and beyond reproach. It is clear from the record that the husband was given ample opportunity to present his case.

[7] The husband also complains that the trial judge did not interview the children. At the time of the trial the children were nearly 8, 5 and 3 years of age. It is questionable whether it is in the best interests of children of such tender years to be interviewed in a custody dispute. In any event, a wide discretion is accorded to the trial judge on the decision to be made in a particular case and there is no basis upon which to interfere.

[8] On the issue of custody, the trial judge found that the wife was totally committed to the welfare of the children, that she discharged her motherly function admirably and that she was better qualified to be the custodial parent. He found that the wife understood the necessity of maintaining the children’s relationship with their father. The trial judge also found that the break-up of the marriage had clouded the husband’s judgment in his relationship with the children and that he failed to understand the negative effect of his conduct on the children.

[9] In our view, the trial judge made a proper determination of the issues to be addressed in this case and his findings and conclusions are all based on the evidence.

[10] Finally, in the circumstances, the trial judge’s exercise of his discretion to award to the wife part of her costs of the trial was entirely justified.

[11] The appeal is dismissed with costs.

(signed) “J. M. Labrosse J.A.”

(signed) “Louise Charron J.A.”

(signed) “Robert J. Sharpe J.A.”