DATE: 20050120

DOCKET: C41820

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

LAMPRON, JACQUES (Applicant/Appellant) – and – LAURA LAMPRON (Respondent)

BEFORE:

MACPHERSON, CRONK and LANG JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

Jacques Lampron

the appellant – in-person

Laura Lampron

the respondent – in-person

HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY:

January 18, 2005

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Robert J. Smith of the Superior Court of Justice dated December 16, 2003 and amended June 18, 2004.

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] The appellant, Jacques Lampron, appeals from the judgment of Justice Robert J. Smith dated December 16, 2003, as amended on June 18, 2004. In the judgment, which followed a 13‑day trial, the trial judge dealt in a comprehensive fashion with a wide range of matrimonial issues – child custody and access, child and spousal support, division of property and equalization.

[2] The appellant appeals two components of the judgment.

[3] First, the appellant contends that the trial judge erred in not including an $81,000 investment, which the respondent allegedly concealed, in the respondent’s property at the date of separation.

[4] We disagree. It is clear from the trial judge’s original and amended reasons that he intended to include the trusts for the children in the wife’s property. All the trial judge did in his amended reasons was change the amount of the calculation from $99,000 to $75,000 to reflect the evidence that established the precise amounts of those trusts.

[5] In the amended reasons, the trial judge explicitly rejected the existence of a concealed investment on the wife’s side of the ledger. There is nothing in his original reasons to suggest that he had a different view about, or made a different disposition concerning, this issue in those reasons.

[6] The appellant also contends that the trial judge erred by not awarding occupation rent to him for the respondent’s continuing occupation of the matrimonial home.

[7] We disagree. Section 24(1) of the Family Law Act gives a trial judge a discretion on this issue. We can see no error in the trial judge’s reasons for refusing to make such an order in this case.

[8] The appeal is dismissed.

“J. C. MacPherson J.A.”

“E. A. Cronk J.A.”

“S. E. Lang J.A.”