Court File and Parties

CITATION: Bromley v. Bromley, 2009 ONCA 355

DATE: 20090429

DOCKET: C48649

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

BEFORE: Winkler C.J.O., MacPherson and MacFarland JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

Kirsty Elizabeth Bromley

Applicant (Appellant in appeal)

And

Nevil Bromley

Respondent

COUNSEL:

Michael David Lannan, for the appellant

Tracy L. Miller, for the respondent

Heard and endorsed orally: April 28, 2009

On appeal from the judgment of Justice William J. Festeryga of the Superior Court of Justice dated April 2, 2008.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] In our view this was a one issue trial which concerned the time each of the parents would spend with their children. The reasons, although brief, in our view are sufficient and clearly and succinctly express why the trial judge made the order he did. Although he does not specifically refer to section 24(2) of the C.L.A. his review of the evidence and factual findings address the factors set out therein and it is clear, if implicit, that he considered the best interests of these children. Status quo is but one factor in the consideration of the children’s best interests and must be considered in light of the fact that equal sharing was the goal from the outset. The father understood and thought that mother agreed that eventually when he had appropriate accommodation he would have equal time. Only when it became clear mother would not agree were these proceedings commenced.

[2] In our view we see no error in the findings of the trial judge and the appeal is dismissed.

[3] Costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis fixed in the sum of $5,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and G.S.T.