COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
CINDY-ANN GOLDSON (Appellant) v. VICTORIA GOLDSON (Respondent)
AND BETWEEN:
VICTORIA GOLDSON (Plaintiff by Counterclaim) v. CINDY-ANN GOLDSON AND JOYCE I. GOLDSON (Defendants by Counterclaim)
BEFORE:
McMURTRY C.J.O., CATZMAN AND ABELLA JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Martha McCarthy
for the appellant
David A. Jarvis
for the respondent
HEARD & ENDORSED:
February 9, 2004
On appeal from the judgment of Justice S. Chapnik of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 4, 2002.
A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T
1We see no basis for interfering with the trial judge’s factual conclusions all of which were available on the record.
2Even assuming, without deciding, that the trial judge should have engaged in a more thorough “presumption of advancement” analysis, it is clear from her finding that she was of the view that the presumption of advancement had been rebutted (see para 58).
3The appeal is therefore dismissed.
4We also see no error in the trial judge’s discretion in the quantum of costs awarded. The respondent is entitled to her costs fixed in the amount of $12,500.00.