Court File and Parties
CITATION: Chang v. Liu, 2019 ONSC 6711
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-19-2511 DATE: 2019/11/20
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
Swinton, Favreau, Copeland JJ.
BETWEEN:
CHING-YUEN (CONNIE) CHANG Appellant
– and –
LING (EDWARD) LIU Respondent
Counsel: Self-represented Self-represented
HEARD at Ottawa: November 20, 2019
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SWINTON J. (Orally)
[1] Ms. Chang appeals from the Order of Doyle J. dated February 20, 2019, which dealt with a motion to change child support.
[2] On an appeal such as this, the appellate court: “… should not overturn support orders unless the reasons disclose an error in principle, a significant misapprehension of the evidence, or unless the award is clearly wrong” (see Hickey v. Hickey, 1999 691 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518, at para. 11.)
[3] As well, in Mason v. Mason, 2016 ONCA 725, at para. 110, the Court of Appeal for Ontario stated:
Because of the fact-based and discretionary nature of support awards, a trial judge’s order for spousal support is entitled to significant deference on appeal. This deferential approach to support awards promotes finality in family law litigation and also recognizes the importance of the trial judge’s role in seeing and hearing the parties and other witnesses testify. An appeal court is not entitled to overturn a spousal support order simply because it would have balanced the relevant factors differently or arrived at a different decision.
[4] The Appellant raises five challenges to the Order: the income imputed to the Respondent for 2015, 2016 and 2017; the calculation of retroactive child support for December 2015 to November 2016; calculation of special expenses for September 2018 to April 2019; the payment of certain special expenses directly to their university-aged son; and the decision not to award costs.
[5] Leaving aside the issue of costs, the Appellant essentially takes issue with the findings of fact and the exercise of discretion by the motion judge, asking us to redecide those issues and to substitute our views.
[6] The motion judge addressed all of the issues raised by the Appellant, and she made specific findings of fact that are supportable by the record before her. Her reasons are careful and detailed, and the Appellant has not shown any palpable and overriding error of fact or any error of law. Accordingly, there is no basis for appellate intervention.
[7] With respect to an order of costs, an appellate court rarely intervenes, as costs are in the discretion of the motion judge. An appellate court may intervene if there has been an error in principle or the costs order is clearly wrong (see Hamilton v. Open Window Bakery Ltd., 2004 SCC 9, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 303 at para. 27).
[8] The motion judge carefully weighed the costs submissions and concluded that there should be no award of costs because success was divided and because of the conduct of both parties. We see no reason to interfere with her costs order.
[9] The Respondent, in his Factum, raised “additional issues” seeking different relief from that ordered by the motion judge. As he did not file a timely notice of cross-appeal pursuant to r. 61.07(1), it is not appropriate for the Court to address these issues. Indeed, it would be unfair to the Appellant to deal with these issues, as she first had notice of them in the Respondent’s Factum.
[10] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
[11] The Respondent seeks $24,491 in costs, using an hourly rate of $106.
[12] A self-represented litigant is entitled to reimbursement for reasonable disbursements. Costs for income foregone are only awarded when supported by evidence of income foregone. The amount claimed must be reasonable, and there is no recovery for time that would be incurred by any litigant or for time doing administrative tasks, such as photocopying or filing.
[13] The amount sought here is excessive and unsupported by the necessary evidence of income foregone.
[14] There should be no costs for the motion before the Court of Appeal of Ontario because none were awarded by the Court of Appeal.
[15] Accordingly, we order costs of $1,000 payable to the Respondent as a reasonable amount to cover his disbursements.
Swinton J.
I agree
Favreau J.
I agree
Copeland J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 20, 2019 Date of Release: November 21, 2019
CITATION: Chang v. Liu, 2019 ONSC 6711 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-19-2511 DATE: 2019/11/20
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
Swinton, Favreau, Copeland JJ.
BETWEEN:
CHING-YUEN (CONNIE) CHANG Appellant
– and –
LING (EDWARD) LIU Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Swinton J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 20, 2019 Date of Release: November 21, 2019