Court of Appeal for Ontario
Citation: Dufresne v. Dufresne, 2009 ONCA 682
Date: 20090924
Docket: C49489
Between:
Albert Dufresne
Applicant (Appellant)
and
Lynda Louise Dufresne
Respondent (Respondent)
Counsel:
D.G. Menzies, for the appellant
G.A. Ste. Marie, for the respondent
Heard and released orally: September 23, 2009
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Paul F. Lalonde of the Superior Court of Justice dated September 11, 2008.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The appellant Albert Dufresne appeals from the judgment of Lalonde J. dated April 29, 2008 in a family law matter in Ottawa. The appellant had brought a motion to vary a consent divorce order. Essentially, the motion judge rejected the appellant’s submissions on most issues and ordered that the appellant continue to provide support to his former wife, the respondent Lynda Dufresne, as follows:
$600 per month of spousal support for life (indexed), starting July 1, 2008;
$150 per month until the respondent turns 65 years old for the cost of obtaining replacement extended healthcare coverage;
maintain the respondent as the beneficiary of $100,000 of life insurance coverage for as long as he is obliged to pay spousal support, failing which $100,000 would be a lien against his estate after he died; and
$18,000 as partial indemnity costs for the motion to vary.
The appellant challenges all of these components of the motion judge’s decision.
[2] The appellant’s principal complaint is that the motion judge ordered that spousal support and life insurance and medical coverage payments continue for his lifetime. He admits that he does not seriously quarrel with the current amounts set for these items by the motion judge; rather, he believes that there will be fundamental changes in both parties’ financial situations after they reach and move beyond 65 years of age. There is no doubt that there will be changes as the parties reach age 65 (the appellant is now 63 years old). However, those changes, which are uncertain, are not a basis for challenging the motion judge’s allocations at this juncture. There is simply no evidentiary basis for setting aside the life insurance component of the order on the basis that it will be impossible, or even difficult, for the appellant to obtain life insurance coverage at a reasonable cost after he reaches 65 years of age. The attacks on the spousal support and medical coverage components of the order are similarly speculative. At this juncture, the order, viewed as a package, seems to fair to both parties.
[3] Finally, we see no basis for interfering with the costs award. This is a domain where the decision of the motion judge is entitled to a great deal of deference.
[4] The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent in the amount of $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.
“K.M. Weiler J.A.”
“J.C. MacPherson J.A.”
“J. MacFarland J.A.”