Piplack v. Piplack
The Court dismissed both the appeal and cross‑appeal, upholding the trial judge's discretionary award of $500 monthly spousal support and his rulings on pre-judgment interest and costs because the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence and did not disclose error in principle, misapprehension of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2007 ONCA 825
- Parties
- Applicant/respondent in Appeal; Appellant in Cross Appeal: Otto Piplack; Respondent/appellant in Appeal; Respondent in Cross Appeal: Ina Piplack
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 30 November 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Family / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Superior Court of Justice Judgment (appellate Review)
- Outcome
- Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; trial judge's orders upheld
- Legal Topics
- Spousal Support Quantum and Commencement, Pre Judgment Interest Commencement and Rate, Costs, Standard of Appellate Review of Discretionary Orders
- 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
Otto Piplack
Applicant/respondent in Appeal; Appellant in Cross Appeal
Ina Piplack
Respondent/appellant in Appeal; Respondent in Cross Appeal
Procedural Posture
Family / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Superior Court of Justice Judgment (appellate Review)
Legal Issues
- 1 Quantum and commencement date for spousal support
- 2 Commencement date and rate for pre-judgment interest
- 3 Entitlement to costs
Ratio Decidendi
The Court dismissed both the appeal and cross‑appeal, upholding the trial judge's discretionary award of $500 monthly spousal support and his rulings on pre-judgment interest and costs because the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence and did not disclose error in principle, misapprehension of the evidence or a plainly wrong decision.
Court Disposition
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; trial judge's orders upheld
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Cross-appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Piplack v. Piplack Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2007-11-30 Neutral citation 2007 ONCA 825 Docket numbers C45044 Judges Simmons, Janet M.; MacFarland, Jean Louise; Epstein, Gloria Jean Subject Family Decision Content CITATION: Piplack v. Piplack, 2007 ONCA 825 DATE:20071130 DOCKET: C45044 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO SIMMONS, MACFARLAND AND EPSTEIN JJ.A. BETWEEN: OTTO PIPLACK Applicant/Respondent in appeal Appellant in Cross Appeal And INA PIPLACK Respondent/Appellant in appeal Respondent in Cross Appeal Daniel J. Dochylo for the appellant Ina Piplack Brian D. Barrie for the respondent Otto Piplack Heard and released orally: November 16, 2007 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Thomas M. Dunn of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 10, 2006. ENDORSEMENT [1] The issues raised on this appeal and cross-appeal relate to the quantum and commencement date for the payment of spousal support by the husband to the wife; the commencement date and rate for pre-judgment interest and to the issue of costs. [2] All of the issues raised relate to matters within the discretion of the trial judge. Appellate courts will not interfere with such orders unless the trial judge’s reasons disclose an error in principle, misapprehension of the evidence or the decision is plainly wrong. [3] While it may have been preferable had the trial judge elaborated on his finding that the appellant had established some need, justifying his award of support in the amount of $500 monthly from the respondent, in our view this finding is not one which would justify appellate interference. [4] It is clear from the evidence that, at the time of trial, the appellant’s needs in excess of her pension were being met through an arrangement between the appellant and her son Daniel. Further, it was open to the trial judge to conclude that at least in relation to some of these funds Daniel was not obliged to continue the arrangement indefinitely. Having regard to these factors, we are not persuaded that the support order made by the trial judge was plainly wrong or that the trial judge made error justifying appellate interference. [5] As for pre-judgment interest and costs these are matters that are plainly within the discretion of the trial judge and we see no error in the trial judge’s awards. [6] The appeal and the cross appeal are dismissed with no order as to costs. “ Janet Simmons J.A.” “J. MacFarland J.A.” “Epstein J.A.”