K.K. v. M.M.
The appeal was dismissed because the appellate court found no reversible legal error and no overriding palpable factual error in the trial judge's discretionary weighing of factors in awarding spousal support at the high end of the SSAG range for an indefinite period; the standard of review requires deference and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2023 ONCA 823
- Parties
- Applicant (appellant): K.K.; Respondent (respondent): M.M.
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 12 December 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Family (spousal Support) / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice to Court of Appeal; Reasons for Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, Standard of Review on Appeal, Costs
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
K.K.
Applicant (appellant)
M.M.
Respondent (respondent)
Procedural Posture
Family (spousal Support) / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice to Court of Appeal; Reasons for Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred in awarding spousal support at the high end of the SSAG range for an indefinite period subject to review
- 2 Whether the trial judge misapprehended or improperly weighed the evidentiary factors relevant to spousal support
- 3 Whether an appellate court may overturn a support order absent a material error, serious misapprehension of evidence, or error in law
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the appellate court found no reversible legal error and no overriding palpable factual error in the trial judge's discretionary weighing of factors in awarding spousal support at the high end of the SSAG range for an indefinite period; the standard of review requires deference and does not permit overturning merely because the appellate court would have balanced factors differently.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Appellant to pay respondent costs of $20,000 all-inclusive
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
K.K. v. M.M. Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2023-12-12 Neutral citation 2023 ONCA 823 Docket numbers C70159 Judges Fairburn, J. Michal; van Rensburg, Katherine; Zarnett, Benjamin Subject Family Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: K.K. v. M.M., 2023 ONCA 823 DATE: 20231212 DOCKET: C70159 Fairburn A.C.J.O., van Rensburg and Zarnett JJ.A. BETWEEN K.K. Applicant (Appellant) and M.M. Respondent (Respondent) Gabrielle Pop-Lazic, for the appellant Aida Pasha, for the respondent Heard and released orally: December 5, 2023 On appeal from the orders of Justice Cynthia Petersen of the Superior Court of Justice, dated June 1, 2021, November 15, 2021 and February 23, 2022. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The parties were married in India on March 10, 2003. They later moved to Canada. They have two children and separated on November 12, 2012. Since then, they have been involved in an acrimonious and highly litigious relationship. [2] This is an appeal from the trial judge’s decision, specifically as it relates to spousal support. The spousal support was set at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines for an indefinite period of time, subject to review on or after December 1, 2027. The appellant claims that this constituted an error, but acknowledges that, at its core, the objection to the trial judge’s reasoning really comes down to the weighing of the relevant factors. [3] The standard of review for family support decisions is significant deference. An appellate court should only intervene where there is a material error, a serious misapprehension of the evidence, or an error in law. This court is not entitled to overturn a support order simply because it would have made a different decision or balanced the factors differently: Hickey v. Hickey, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518, at para. 12. This is what we are being asked to do by the appellant. We have been pointed to no reversible legal error and no overriding palpable factual error with respect to the reasoning or the result reached by the trial judge. [4] The appeal is dismissed. Costs will be paid by the appellant to the respondent in the amount of $20,000, all-inclusive. “Fairburn A.C.J.O.” “K. van Rensburg J.A.” “B. Zarnett J.A.”