CITATION: Singha v. Singh, 2007 ONCA 195

DATE: 20070321

DOCKET: C46180

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

PRABHA SINGHA (Respondent (Applicant)) – and – HARDIAL SINGH (Appellant (Respondent))

BEFORE:

DOHERTY, MOLDAVER and CRONK JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

Hardial Singh

in person

Gary S. Joseph

for the respondent

HEARD & ENDORSED:

March 16, 2007

On appeal from the orders of Justice Michael G. Quigley of the Superior Court of Justice dated September 21, 2006 and July 19, 2006.

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

[1] We reject the appellant’s claim that he was denied procedural fairness in respect of the proceedings before the application/motion judge. The appellant had ample notice of the long motion date and was served personally with the respondent’s materials, about two weeks before the date of hearing in October 2005.

[2] We see no error in the application/motion judge’s disposition concerning the real properties at issue. The record before him fully supported his decision in this regard.

[3] With respect to the retroactive spousal support ordered, the respondent acknowledges that an error was made in the application/motion judge’s order and reasons concerning the date of separation. The evidence indicated that the date of separation was December 2000 rather than January 2000, the latter as suggested by the application/motion judge. Consequently, the respondent concedes that the quantum of retroactive spousal support should be reduced by the sum $18,600.00 ($1,550 per month for 12 months) resulting in an adjusted retroactive spousal support payment of $74,400.00. We should not be taken as commenting in any way as to whether the issue of retroactive spousal support is a live issue in the pending trial.

[4] The only issue on which the appellant was successful on this appeal was raised by him for the first time during oral argument. That issue involved a straightforward mathematical adjustment of the retroactive spousal support award, the necessity of which was readily and properly conceded by the respondent. In all other respects, the appellant was wholly unsuccessful. We also note that he made no effort to resolve the retroactive spousal support adjustment with the respondent prior to the appeal, necessitating extensive preparation by the respondent in respect of the meritless grounds of appeal. In these circumstances, the respondent is entitled to her costs of the appeal, fixed in the total amount of $5,000, inclusive of disbursements and G.S.T.