Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: Yeates v. Yeates, 2008 ONCA 519

DATE: 20080702

DOCKET: C47141

BEFORE: DOHERTY, ARMSTRONG and MACFARLAND JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

MICHELE YEATES

Applicant (Respondent in Appeal)

and

WILLIAM YEATES

Respondent (Appellant in Appeal)

COUNSEL:

William Yeates in person

L. S. Crackower, Q.C. for the respondent

Heard and endorsed: June 25, 2008

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Susan E. Greer of the Superior Court of Justice dated April 12, 2007.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant appeals the judgment of Greer J. dated April 12, 2007 and raises two grounds of appeal in relation to the quantum allowed for s. 7 (Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3) expenses and spousal support.

[2] The evidence in this case was detailed and complex. Two of the three children are disabled and the respondent receives certain government allowances to assist with the special care of these children. The evidence discloses that the third child has been affected by the disabilities of her siblings and has special needs of her own as a result.

[3] The respondent remains in the home presently and cares for the three children on a full-time basis. The evidence discloses that she gets relatively little assistance from the appellant in terms of rearing these children so the majority of their care falls to her.

[4] The trial judge’s award for s. 7 expenses was between the parameters suggested by the appellant at trial - $1,284 and $1,424 per month. The trial judge awarded $1,300. The husband argues that in awarding the sum the trial judge did not take into consideration the fact that the respondent receives money from government agencies as well as reimbursement for some of these expenses through his benefit plan. In our view the trial judge was well aware that the respondent received this money which reimbursed her for some expenses (See paragraph 90 of her reasons). The children’s needs here are far greater than there is money to pay for them. This was not a precise mathematical calculation but rather a figure chosen to reflect the limited resources available and to achieve to the extent possible fairness between the parties. We are not persuaded that the trial judge made any reversible error in her disposition of the s. 7 issues.

[5] The appellant also argues that the spousal support award should be reduced by $500. The appellant suggests that the trial judge erred in fixing his net monthly income at a figure higher than it in fact was. At paragraph 28 of her reasons the trial judge sets out the evidence in relation to the appellant’s income and it is this evidence she relied on in coming to the award she made for spousal support. She carefully considered the fact that the respondent received income from government agencies and insurance coverage. The wife sought $3,500 per month.

[6] The trial judge awarded $2,500 per month – a sum which she noted in paragraph 45 of her reasons the appellant agreed to pay on an interim basis pending the hearing. We are of the view that the evidence supports that figure and we would not interfere.

[7] The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent fixed in the sum of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and G.S.T.

Signed: "Doherty J.A."

"Robert P. Armstrong J.A."

"J. MacFarland J.A."