DATE: 20061102

DOCKET: C44079

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

JI JIANG CHENG (Plaintiff (Respondent)) – and – YEN TRANG LUU (Defendant (Appellant))

BEFORE:

LASKIN, MacPHERSON and LANG JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

Richard P. Quance

for the appellant

Tina Lee

for the respondent

HEARD & ENDORSED:

November 2, 2006

On appeal from the judgment of Madam Justice Alison Harvison Young of the Superior Court of Justice dated August 26, 2005.

A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] Even assuming that the appellant’s argument has merit with respect to the earlier agreement, we see no basis to interfere with the trial judge’s finding that the October 28, 1999 document, signed by the appellant, was an enforceable promissory note.

[2] Although the appellant argues on appeal that there was an absence of consideration for the promissory note, the trial judge concluded otherwise on the basis of the family relationship between and among the two families involved in the restaurant business. The father’s act of signing the promissory note at the request of his daughter was to benefit his son and the family restaurant venture. In that way, there was consideration sufficient to support the note.

[3] On the issue of non est factum, the appellant chose not to read the document. Because of his carelessness, he cannot rely on this defence.

[4] We see no reason to interfere with the award of pre-judgment interest. Even though the respondent reduced his claim to come within the simplified rules, he remains entitled to pre-judgment interest.

[5] The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent in the amount of $3,500 inclusive of GST and disbursements.