COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
CITATION: Karges v. Karges, 2019 ONCA 833
DATE: 20191021
DOCKET: C66258
Rouleau, Huscroft and Nordheimer JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Dale Beverley Karges
Applicant (Appellant)
and
Richard Gerard Karges
Respondent (Respondent in Appeal)
Aaron Franks and Stephanie Romano, for the appellant
Robert Bickle, for the respondent
Heard and released orally: October 16, 2019
On appeal from the judgment of Justice C. Stephen Glithero of the Superior Court of Justice, dated November 8, 2018.
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] Ms. Karges appeals the order of the trial judge that reduced the level of support being paid by the respondent. The appellant acknowledges that in order to succeed she must demonstrate that the trial judge was either clearly wrong or misapplied the applicable legal principles.
[2] In that regard the appellant submits that the trial judge was premature in accepting that the respondent was going to retire. She also submits that there was no basis for reducing the level of support if appropriate income was imputed to the respondent if, in fact, he did retire.
[3] We do not accept the appellant’s submissions. The trial judge heard the evidence. He reached certain conclusions all of which were available on the evidence. In particular, he found that the evidence of the respondent about his retirement was uncontradicted and that the respondent’s decision in that regard was bona fide. On the issue of income, the trial judge reviewed the appellant’s employment prospects and imputed income of $60,000 to him to age 65, notwithstanding that the parties had not provided him with any evidence on this central point. We are unable to see any misapplication of the applicable principles in the analysis in which the trial judge engaged on that point. The trial judge referred to s. 17 of the Divorce Act. He is not required to recite the specific factors. There is no basis to suggest that he did not consider all of those factors in coming to his conclusion.
[4] In the end result, it is not the role of this court to substitute our opinion on the facts for that of the trial judge. The appellant has not established that the trial judge was clearly wrong in the result that he reached.
[5] The appeal is dismissed. The respondent is entitled to his costs which, in the circumstances, we would fix at $6,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.
“Paul Rouleau J.A.”
“Grant Huscroft J.A.”
“I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A.”