Citation: Onichuk v Toews, 2019 MBCA 121 Date: 20191204 Docket: AF19-30-09236 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Madam Justice Holly C. Beard Madam Justice Diana M. Cameron Mr. Justice William J. Burnett BETWEEN : toni zofia marie antoinette ) C. B. Paul onichuk ) for the Appellant ) (Petitioner) Appellant ) L. R.

Fishman ) for the Respondent - and - ) ) Appeal heard and edward vincent toews ) Decision pronounced: ) December 4, 2019 (Respondent) Respondent ) On appeal from 2018 MBQB 98 ; and 2018 MBQB 191 burnett JA (for the Court) : [ 1 ] The petitioner appeals the trial judge’s decision with respect to spousal support and the award of costs. [ 2 ] The trial judge delivered two sets of reasons following trial, as well as a subsequent endorsement with respect to the issue of costs. [ 3 ] In the first decision, the trial judge imputed income to both the petitioner and the respondent.

In the second decision, following further written submissions, the trial judge determined the quantum and duration of spousal support, concluding that the support that had been paid by the respondent pursuant to an interim consent order was sufficient to 2016 and that support should be increased from $1,750 to $2,500 commencing in 2017. The trial judge was not prepared to make an order for termination of spousal support on a specific date.

In the endorsement, the trial judge awarded the respondent costs of $48,000 all-inclusive. [ 4 ] The petitioner submitted that the trial judge erred: 1) in her assessment of income imputed to her; 2) in her assessment of the income imputed to the respondent; and 3) in establishing the amount of costs. [ 5 ] Both parties agree, as do we, that the issues raised are matters of discretion and are entitled to deference unless the trial judge misdirected herself, made an error in principle or her decision is so clearly wrong as to amount to an injustice. [ 6 ] The trial judge considered all of the evidence, including numerous volumes of material provided by the respondent to support his expenses, and she gave detailed reasons for reaching her conclusions. [ 7 ] We have not been persuaded that the trial judge misdirected herself, made an error in principle or that her decision is so clearly wrong as to amount to an injustice and, in the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.

JA JA