Hockey-Sweeney v. Sweeney, 2004 ONCA 34840

Case Summary

The appellant appealed a trial judgment concerning equalization, spousal support, and the treatment of a family trust. The appellant, who was unrepresented at trial and under a disability on appeal, argued that the trial judge failed to assist her, erred in not ordering further disclosure, and erred in finding the respondent had no property interest in the trust. The Court of Appeal dismissed these grounds, finding the trial judge treated the appellant fairly and made reasonable findings of fact. However, the Court allowed the appeal in part regarding spousal support, increasing it from $3,500 to $5,000 per month, finding the trial judge erred by penalizing the appellant for relinquishing care of the children and failing to explain the reduction from the interim order. Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent, but the Court declined to order the Public Guardian and Trustee to pay them.

DATE: 20041102
DOCKET: C38636

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

DOHERTY, LASKIN and JURIANSZ JJ.A.

B E T W E E N :

LOUISE HELEN HOCKEY-SWEENEY

Donald F. Bur
for the appellant

Petitioner
(Appellant)

and -

LAWRENCE PERCIVAL SWEENEY

Harold Niman and
Deborah F. Zemans
for the respondent

(Respondent)

Heard: August 27, 2004

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Peter B. Hambly of the Superior Court of Justice dated July 8, 2002 reported at [2002] O.J. No. 3165.

LASKIN J.A.:

I. Introduction

[1] The appellant, Mrs. Hockey-Sweeney, and the respondent, Mr. Sweeney, separated in 1999 after a sixteen-year marriage. They have three children, now 19, 18 and 14 years old.

[2] The parties litigated their differences over the children, the amount of the equalization payment and spousal support in an acrimonious five-week trial before Hambly J. Mrs. Hockey-Sweeney chose to represent herself. The two principal issues at trial were whether Mr. Sweeney had disclosed all his assets and whether he ought to have included in his net family property statement the shares of several companies owned beneficially by a trust – the LILAC Trust – which he established in 1997 for the benefit of his children. The trial judge accepted Mr. Sweeney’s evidence, and rejected Mrs. Hockey-Sweeney’s allegation that her husband had not disclosed or accounted for all his assets.

[3] After granting the parties their divorce, the trial judge made the following corollary orders:

A. The Children: Mrs. Hockey-Sweeney and Mr. Sweeney were given joint custody, but the children were to live primarily with Mr. Sweeney. Mr. Sweeney was also given the sole power to make decisions affecting the children. The two older children could decide how much time they wished to spend with their mother. Mrs. Hockey-Sweeney was given specified access to the youngest child.

B. Equalization Payment: Mrs. Hockey-Sweeney was ordered to pay Mr. Sweeney $553,390.45. This equalization payment largely reflected Mrs. Hockey-Sweeney’s ownership of the two main items of family property: the matrimonial home valued at $1,000,000 and a thirty-four foot yacht valued at $511,000.

C. Spousal Support: Mr. Sweeney was ordered to pay Mrs. Hockey-Sweeney $3,500 per month.

D. Costs: Mrs. Hockey-Sweeney was ordered to pay Mr. Sweeney his costs of the action, fixed at $200,000.

[4] Mrs. Hockey-Sweeney is now under a disability. On this appeal she was represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee. In her

Hockey-Sweeney v. Sweeney, 2004 ONCA 34840

Case Summary

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

LASKIN J.A.:

I. Introduction

Judges

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Financial Outcomes

Issues

Legal Tests 2

Legislation 3