DATE: 20060927

DOCKET: C45207

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

ANDREA LAPKIN aka Heinecke aka Copeland (Applicant/Appellant) v. TERRY LAPKIN (Respondent)

BEFORE:

DOHERTY, SIMMONS and ROULEAU JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

David C. Besant

for the applicant/appellant

D. Todd Morganstein

for the respondent

HEARD & ENDORSED:

September 25, 2006

On appeal from the order of Justice Whelan of the Superior Court of Justice dated March 15, 2006.

A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] There was a basis for the finding that the appellant was in breach of the December 6, 2002 order and that she was aware of her disclosure obligations. That was sufficient to provide a legal basis for the finding. The judge chose to make a finding of contempt having found a breach. While other judges having found a breach may not have made a finding of contempt, we are not satisfied that we can interfere with the judge’s exercise of his discretion. We note that the judge did not impose any penalty and that the other parts of his order, including the costs order, are justified apart from the finding of contempt.

[2] The appeal is dismissed.

[3] Costs to the respondent in the amount of $4,000, inclusive of GST and disbursements.