The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering him to pay $25,000 to his former common-law partner for unpaid loans and living expenses.
He argued the trial judge failed to credit him for certain payments and that his debt should be reduced because the respondent had entered into a consumer proposal with her creditors.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings.
The court also held that the respondent's consumer proposal did not reduce the value of the debt the appellant owed to her.
