Court File and Parties

CITATION: Hoekstra v. Hoekstra, 2009 ONCA 358

DATE: 20090429

DOCKET: C48591

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

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

BETWEEN:

Barbara Jean Hoekstra

Applicant (Appellant)

and

Donald Ralph Hoekstra

Respondent (Respondent)

Counsel:

Barbara Hoekstra, appearing in person

Jeffrey Wilson and Lorna M. Yates, for the respondent

Heard: April 29, 2009

On appeal from the judgment of Justice James A. Ramsay of the Superior Court of Justice dated March 7, 2008.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant, Barbara Hoekstra, appeals the order of Ramsay J. dated March 7, 2008, denying the appellant spousal support.

[2] The parties were married for 32 years. They have four adult daughters, two of whom have special needs.

[3] The trial judge found that, after equalization, the appellant had a net worth of approximately $1.4 million. He concluded that the standard of living within reach of each party on his or her own efforts was approximately equal. The parties’ ability to maintain their pre-divorce lifestyle had diminished not because of the divorce, but because the respondent lost his job. Considering the factors in s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act against the evidence presented at trial, the trial judge held that spousal support for the appellant was not called for.

[4] The appellant contends that the trial judge’s reasons are insufficient, that he failed to make relevant factual findings, that he misapprehended the evidence, and that, ultimately, he erred by not awarding spousal support to her.

[5] We disagree. The trial judge explicitly referred to s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act and the leading cases dealing with its interpretation: Moge (1992), Bracklow (1999) and Miglin (2003). He noted that the appellant lives in a six-bedroom home with her new husband, has living expenses of about $4800 per month, has a Master’s degree in landscape architecture, and “could work and earn more money”. We see no basis for interfering with these findings and the legal conclusion – no spousal support – that flowed from them.

[6] The appeal is dismissed. The respondent, generously, seeks no order for costs.