COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
ROSHAN KALLA (Petitioner/Respondent in Appeal)
-and- NURDIN KALLA (Respondent/Appellant)
BEFORE:
LABROSSE, LANG and JURIANSZ JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Nurdin Kalla
the appellant
in person
Richard N. Brown
for the respondent
HEARD AND RELEASED ORALLY:
February 14, 2005
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Nancy L. Backhouse of the Superior Court of Justice dated May 5, 2003.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1At the outset, Mr. Kalla brought a motion for the admission of fresh evidence. There is no reason why the proposed evidence was not adduced or was not available at trial. Even applying the test flexibly in a family law setting, the fresh evidence does not meet the test for admissibility.
2Mr. Kalla in his oral argument raises many complaints and accusations that do not assist in the resolution of this appeal.
3The trial took place in difficult circumstances because Mr. Kalla was representing himself. The trial judge exercised her trial management power to curtail irrelevant cross-examination and keep the trial moving ahead in a timely fashion.
4The trial judge made specific findings with respect to the valuation date, the husband’s pension, the matrimonial home, the division of net family property and child support.
5The complaints of Mr. Kalla do not provide a proper basis for this court to interfere with the trial judgment.
6Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs fixed in the amount of $2,000, all inclusive.
Signed:
“J.-M. Labrosse J.A.” “S.E. Lang J.A.” “R.G. Juriansz J.A.”