Court File and Parties

CITATION: Thompson v. Downey, 2021 ONSC 4255

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 560/20

DATE: 2021/06/14

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Natasha Thompson, Appellant

AND:

Michael Downey, Respondent

BEFORE: Sachs, Trimble and G.W. King JJ.

COUNSEL: Natasha Thompson on her own behalf

Michael Downey, did not appear

HEARD at Hamilton: June 11, 2021

ENDORSEMENT

Sachs J.

[1] Ms. Thompson seeks to appeal an order made by Ramsay J. on October 13, 2020 and an order made by Martin J. on November 10, 2017. In his order Ramsay J. (the “Motion Judge”) dismissed Ms. Thompson’s motion to change the order of Martin J. with respect to custody, access or residence. He also ordered Ms. Thompson to pay support in the amount of $540.00 per month for the two children, Martin and Chelsey.

[2] Ms. Thompson is out of time to appeal Martin J.’s order. Ms. Thompson also requested that we grant her a divorce and/or an annulment from her current husband, Frank Thompson. In order to obtain this relief Ms. Thompson must apply in the usual way based on complete and proper documentation. She cannot come to the Divisional Court on an appeal from an order made in a completely different proceeding and orally request that this court make an order granting her a divorce from another marriage.

[3] Ms. Thompson argues that the Motion Judge erred in refusing to vary Martin J.’s order with respect to custody, access and residency. In order to vary that order the Motion Judge would have had to find that there had been a material change in circumstances that justified the variation. He found that there had been no such change. As the Motion Judge noted, Chelsey is now over the age of majority and Martin was then almost 15 ( he is now 15). Martin had unequivocally expressed his desire to stay with his father and not see his mother. That was the situation before Martin J. and that remained the situation when the Motion Judge heard the matter. Thus, the Motion Judge made no error when he dismissed the motion to vary.

[4] With respect to child support, Ms. Thompson submits that the Motion Judge erred in ordering that she pay child support in the amount of $540.00 per month for two children. According to her the Motion Judge erred when he found that Chelsey was still a dependent child and he erred when he found that her income in 2019 was $35, 592.00.

[5] In order to set aside the Motion Judge’s order for child support Ms. Thompson must satisfy us that he made a palpable and overriding error. The material that Ms. Thompson filed on this appeal was extensive, but disorganized. Much of what was filed was irrelevant to the issues we had to hear. What the material did not contain was clear evidence that was before the Motion Judge (Ms. Thompson did not make an application to admit fresh evidence on her appeal) that demonstrated that when the Motion Judge found that Chelsey was a dependent child he made a palpable and overriding error. The material also did not contain clear evidence that was before the Motion Judge that showed that the Motion Judge erred when he found that Ms. Thompson’s income in 2019 was $35, 592.00. In this regard, at the hearing before us, Ms. Thompson had trouble locating the pages concerning her income in 2019. We were eventually taken to pages A1908- A1911 in Caselines, which did contain some information regarding her 2019 income tax filings. However, the information was incomplete. It certainly was not enough to meet the standard of demonstrating a palpable and overriding error.

[6] For these reasons the appeal is dismissed.

Sachs J.

I agree _______________________________

Trimble J.

I agree _______________________________

G.W. King J.

Date: June 14, 2021