COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
CITATION: Dorasamy v. Dorasamy, 2018 ONCA 747
DATE: 20180912
DOCKET: C64652
Rouleau, Pardu and Benotto JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Claudia Dorasamy
Appellant
and
Punginathn Dorasamy
Respondent
Claudia Dorasamy, acting in person
Darryl Willer, for the respondent
Heard and released orally: September 10, 2018
On appeal from the order of Justice R. Mazza of the Superior Court of Justice, dated May 29, 2017.
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] The appellant asks that she be awarded additional child support in the amount of $50,000 and that she be awarded a payment of $96,000 representing her share of the expenses to maintain the home after separation. She also seeks an order that her support be adjusted annually in accordance with the CPI.
[2] In our view, the appeal should be dismissed.
[3] The trial judge’s award for child support was in accordance with the child support guidelines. It related to the one child who, by the time of trial, was an adult. In our view, there is no error in the trial judge’s decision to follow the guidelines as they provided a more than adequate amount.
[4] We also reject the appellant’s submission that the trial judge erred in not ordering that she be reimbursed for her share of the expenses paid to maintain the home. There is no unfairness in the appellant sharing in those expenses as she benefitted both by residing in the home until the date of trial and by sharing in the profit generated by the sale of the home.
[5] As for the request that her support be adjusted to account for the CPI, the trial judge’s decision is entitled to deference. It provided that spousal support will be adjusted to reflect any change in the respondent’s salary. This, in our view, is both fair and appropriate. We therefore reject this ground of appeal.
[6] The appellant also argues that the trial decision was somehow tainted because the respondent’s trial counsel had had contact with the Canada Revenue Agency with respect to issues that arose in the action. We see no impropriety in counsel’s conduct concerning this matter.
[7] In oral submissions, the appellant asks that we set aside the trial judge’s order as to costs. She did not file the reasons or the order with respect to costs, but advises that the amount awarded was $23,000. Costs are discretionary and the amount ordered is clearly reasonable given the length of the trial.
[8] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent fixed at $9,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.
“Paul Rouleau J.A.”
“G. Pardu J.A.”
“M.L. Benotto J.A.”