Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: Vynnyk v. Baisa, 2008 ONCA 657

Date: 2008-09-29

Docket: C46757

Before: Laskin, Sharpe and Simmons JJ.A.

Between:

Roman Vynnyk Applicant (Appellant)

and

Ouliana Baisa Respondent (Respondent)

Counsel:

James A. Hunter for the appellant Vynnyk

Ouliana Baisa in person for the respondent

Heard and endorsed: September 19, 2008

On appeal from the order of Justice Gloria Klowak of the Superior Court of Justice dated January 24, 2007.

Endorsement

[1] Following a two week trial, the trial judge ordered the husband to pay to the wife child support in the amount of $774.00 per month based on an imputed income of $87,000 per year; spousal support of $2,000 per month for a period of five years; and lump sum spousal support of $75,000.00.

[2] On appeal to this court, the husband claims that in ordering combined periodic and lump sum spousal support the trial judge overemphasized the sacrifices made by the wife during the marriage, undervalued the sacrifices made by the husband, and awarded an amount that is both punitive to the husband and excessive.

[3] We disagree. The trial judge found that the wife made extraordinary efforts to establish her husband in this country and to enable him to achieve educational and career success. These are findings of fact and we see no basis to interfere with them. The combined award of limited term periodic support and lump sum support was designed to enable the wife to achieve similar goals.

[4] In Hickey v. Hickey, 1999 CanLII 691 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518, the Supreme Court of Canada indicated that appeal courts should not overturn support orders unless the reasons disclose an error in principle, a significant misapprehension of the evidence, or unless the award is clearly wrong.

[5] The trial judge gave thorough reasons and fully considered all of the relevant legal principles. Although we view the spousal support award as generous, we are unable to identify any error in principle or material misapprehension of the evidence; nor can we say the award is clearly wrong.

[6] The appeal is therefore dismissed.

"John Laskin J.A."

"Robert J. Sharpe J.A."

"Janet Simmons J.A."