Court File and Parties

CITATION: Piplack v. Piplack, 2007 ONCA 825

DATE: 20071130

DOCKET: C45044

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

SIMMONS, MACFARLAND AND EPSTEIN JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

OTTO PIPLACK

Applicant/Respondent in appeal Appellant in Cross Appeal

And

INA PIPLACK

Respondent/Appellant in appeal Respondent in Cross Appeal

Counsel: Daniel J. Dochylo for the appellant Ina Piplack Brian D. Barrie for the respondent Otto Piplack

Heard and released orally: November 16, 2007

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Thomas M. Dunn of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 10, 2006.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The issues raised on this appeal and cross-appeal relate to the quantum and commencement date for the payment of spousal support by the husband to the wife; the commencement date and rate for pre-judgment interest and to the issue of costs.

[2] All of the issues raised relate to matters within the discretion of the trial judge. Appellate courts will not interfere with such orders unless the trial judge’s reasons disclose an error in principle, misapprehension of the evidence or the decision is plainly wrong.

[3] While it may have been preferable had the trial judge elaborated on his finding that the appellant had established some need, justifying his award of support in the amount of $500 monthly from the respondent, in our view this finding is not one which would justify appellate interference.

[4] It is clear from the evidence that, at the time of trial, the appellant’s needs in excess of her pension were being met through an arrangement between the appellant and her son Daniel. Further, it was open to the trial judge to conclude that at least in relation to some of these funds Daniel was not obliged to continue the arrangement indefinitely. Having regard to these factors, we are not persuaded that the support order made by the trial judge was plainly wrong or that the trial judge made error justifying appellate interference.

[5] As for pre-judgment interest and costs these are matters that are plainly within the discretion of the trial judge and we see no error in the trial judge’s awards.

[6] The appeal and the cross appeal are dismissed with no order as to costs.

“Janet Simmons J.A.”

“J. MacFarland J.A.”

“Epstein J.A.”