Written by: Naa Lansana with Collaboration of Stefania Rotundu
Fielding v Fielding, 2024 ONCA 807: Lessons Learned
On October 29, 2024, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal in what was described as a “high conflict family proceeding.” ¹In upholding the trial judge’s decisions regarding the termination of spousal support, the Court imparted important lessons for litigants in family law matters.
The case involved Craig Fielding, the Respondent, and Victoria Fielding, the Applicant, who married in June 1993 and separated in December 2010. They had three adult children. At the time of their marriage, both were practicing physicians—Craig was a plastic surgeon with a private practice, and Victoria was a urologist. However, in 2007, Victoria left her medical practice due to degenerative eye problems and began receiving long-term disability benefits. By the time of their divorce order in April 2014, Victoria had received a substantial equalization payment.
The case was particularly complicated because of lengthy litigation. In 2013, there had been a 15-day trial regarding parenting issues. In 2014, there had been a 10-day trial over financial issues. In 2015, the Applicant brought unsuccessful appeals of her two trial decisions. In 2018, there was an 11-day trial in respect of Craig’s first Motion to Change. This appeal arose out of another Motion to Change brought by the Respondent aimed at terminating his child support and spousal support obligations because he had retired. Meanwhile, the Appellant sought to double her spousal support payments owing to her disability benefits ending and claimed she should continue receiving child support until her youngest child completed her graduate degree in 2023. The trial judge concluded that the Respondent’s decision to retire effective December 31, 2021, was reasonable. The trial judge also held that the Applicant was entitled to receive child support for her youngest child until August 31, 2023.
The Applicant challenged the trial judge’s decision on 24 grounds. The Court of Appeal distilled these into three main arguments and ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked merit. In particular, the Court upheld the motion judge’s finding that the Respondent’s retirement was reasonable, noting that the Applicant had been given several months’ notice of his plans. As such, among other things, the motion judge’s decision to end the Respondent’s spousal support was also found to be reasonable. The Court of Appeal found no “palpable and overriding error in fact or error in principle”2. Finally, the Court of Appeal denied the Applicant’s leave to appeal the motion judge’s costs award and awarded costs to the Respondent in the amount of $30,000.00.
The Court’s decision in Fielding v Fielding highlights three important lessons for litigants in family law proceedings:
1. Ensure Your Claims Have Merit: Litigants should carefully assess whether their spousal support claims are meritorious. The Court will dismiss appeals that lack sufficient grounds.
2. Deference to Trial Judges: The Court of Appeal will generally defer to trial judges and will not reweigh the evidence or retry the case. Absent palpable errors in fact or law, appellate courts will give considerable weight to the trial judge’s findings.
3. Beware of Costs in Frivolous Appeals: If litigants bring spousal support proceedings with no merits, they should beware of incurring additional costs.
Ultimately, Fielding v Fielding serves as a cautionary tale for litigious parties, reinforcing, inter alia, the importance of reasonable claims and awareness of the potential financial consequences of meritless spousal support appeals.
¹ Fielding v Fielding, 2024 ONCA 807 at para 1.
Ibid at para 6.
