COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Karges v. Karges, 2014 ONCA 163

DATE: 20140228

DOCKET: C56286

MacPherson, Cronk and Gillese JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Angela Annette Karges

Applicant (Respondent)

and

Kevin David Karges

Respondent (Appellant)

Tracy Miller, for the appellant

Michelle Dwyer, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: February 26, 2014

On appeal from the order of Justice Silja S. Seppi of the Superior Court of Justice, dated October 1, 2012.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant Kevin Karges appeals from the Order of Seppi J. of the Superior Court of Justice dated October 1, 2012, in matrimonial proceedings relating to, inter alia, custody, child and spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

[2] The appellant contends that, against the backdrop of a consent joint custody order, the trial judge erred by designating the respondent’s home as the children’s primary residence and by ordering unequal periods of access to the parents.

[3] We do not accept this submission. The trial judge carefully reviewed the evidence of the parties and the court appointed assessor, Dr. Butkowsky. Her decision on the primary residence issue is fully supported by the record, as is her allocation of access time to both parents. In reaching this decision, we are mindful of this court’s limited role in reviewing custody and access decisions: see Van de Perre v. Edwards, 2001 SCC 60, at paras. 12-13.

[4] The appellant asserts that the trial judge erred in her child and spousal support orders.

[5] We disagree. If anything, the trial judge’s imputation of the respondent’s income ($30,000, even though her actual income in the preceding year was $12,513) was generous to the appellant. Moreover, the evidence at trial strongly supported the trial judge’s conclusions that the respondent had a demonstrated need and the appellant had an ability to pay. As well, the trial judge stated that a review could be initiated commencing January, 2015.

[6] Finally, we see no error in the trial judge’s calculation of equalization, especially in the context of a small number of items and the amounts in issue.

[7] In short, the trial judge provided a comprehensive and sensible analysis and disposition in what appears to have been a high conflict matrimonial case. The appeal is dismissed.

[8] In light of this disposition, it is not necessary to consider the appellant’s costs appeal.

[9] The respondent is entitled to her costs of the appeal fixed at $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST. It is ordered that this amount be paid to the respondent from the money currently held in court as security for costs and the remainder paid to the appellant’s counsel in trust.

“J.C. MacPherson J.A.”

“E.A. Cronk J.A.”

“E.E. Gillese J.A.”