Farjad-Tehrani v. Karimpour, 2010 ONCA 326

Case Summary

The appellant appealed the trial judge's judgments regarding the division of matrimonial property. The respondent conceded a mathematical error in the calculation of the net proceeds from the sale of a property, which the Court of Appeal corrected. However, the court dismissed the remainder of the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding under the Pecore analysis that a $140,000 advance from the appellant's parents was a gift rather than a loan. The trial judge's costs award was also upheld.

CITATION: Farjad-Tehrani v. Karimpour, 2010 ONCA 326

DATE: 20100504

DOCKET: C50476

Moldaver, MacPherson and Watt JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

Negin Farjad-Tehrani

Applicant (Respondent)

and

Mehran Karimpour

Respondent (Appellant)

Mehran Karimpour, appellant appearing in person

Dani Z. Frodis, for the respondent

Heard: April 29, 2010

On appeal from the judgments of Justice Susan Himel of the Superior Court of Justice, dated December 19, 2008 and April 23, 2009.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

1The appellant appeals the judgments of Himel J. dated December 19, 2008 and April 23, 2009 relating to the division of matrimonial property upon divorce.

2The respondent conceded that the application judge erred in her determination that the net proceeds from the sale of the Marthclare property were $104,503.77. This mistake stemmed from an error in the respondent’s net family property statement. The correct number was $94,646.99, thereby making the respondent’s half interest entitlement $47,323.50. Paragraph 3 of Himel J.’s Order should be amended accordingly.

3In all other respects, we would dismiss the appeal. In particular, there is no basis to interfere with the application judge’s conclusion relating to the issue of $140,000 given to the couple by the appellant’s parents. The application judge’s analysis tracked the analysis set out in Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 795 and her conclusion that the money was a gift, not a loan is supportable on the record. If follows that we see no error in the application judge’s equalization calculation.

4Finally, the application judge carefully explained how she reached her costs award of $50,000 plus disbursements and GST. A consideration of two offers to settle was central to her analysis. Moreover, we note that the appellant sought costs of $49,000 on the application.

5The appeal is dismissed with the one exception noted above. The respondent is entitled to her costs of the appeal fixed at $12,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.