Court File and Parties

CITATION: Vickerman v. Vickerman, 2009 ONCA 79

DATE: 20090127

DOCKET: C48255

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Sharpe, Blair and Rouleau JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

Granville Vickerman

Applicant (Appellant in Appeal)

and

Eileen Vickerman

Respondent (Respondent in Appeal)

Counsel:

Richard Guy, for the appellant

C. Anthony Carroll, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: January 22, 2009

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Lydia Olah of the Superior Court of Justice dated December 21, 2007.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] Before us, the appellant abandoned several of his grounds of appeal. He proceeded on two grounds.

[2] First, the appellant argues that the costs reasons refer to a six day trial rather than the correct figure of five days. In our view, this was simply a slip by the trial judge. Despite the incorrect reference at one point in the reasons, at the outset of the reasons the trial judge had correctly referred to the trial as having taken five days. Further, the sum fixed for costs is in our view reasonable. The respondent’s bill of costs at trial totalled $92,815 and the trial judge reduced this amount to $38,662.96.

[3] Second, the appellant submits that there are numerous errors in the trial judge’s reasons and that many of the trial judge’s criticisms of the appellant’s evidence apply equally to the respondent. In our view, the trial judge did not err in her appreciation of the evidence. In any event, even if we were to accept that some of the concerns raised by the appellant with the reasons reveal errors in the trial judge’s assessment of the evidence, they are relatively minor and do not amount to palpable and overriding errors that would justify intervention by this court.

[4] As to the suggestion that the trial judge treated the evidence of the appellant and respondent differently, the trial judge acknowledged that both parties “wove a web of deceit to suit their personal and familial economic purposes”. Accordingly, the trial judge refused to apply a blanket condemnation of the evidence of either party. Rather, she attempted to address the evidence and credibility on each disputed issue. When making specific findings, she set out the basis for accepting the respondent’s evidence and in many cases pointed to corroborating evidence. We see no error in this regard.

[5] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent fixed at $12,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

“Robert J. Sharpe J.A.”

“R.A. Blair J.A.”

“Paul Rouleau J.A.”