COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Goudge, Juriansz and Epstein JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Laurie Straub
Applicant (Respondent by way of cross-appeal)
and
Roy Straub
Respondent (Appellant by way of cross-appeal)
Counsel:
Roy Straub, cross-appellant appearing in person
Reesa Heft, for the cross-respondent
Heard and released orally: November 25, 2013
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Michael K. McKelvey of the Superior Court of Justice, dated January 11, 2013.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
1Mr. Straub raises four issues. First, he says the trial judge erred in failing to treat his payments to his mother as interest payments rather than principal. We do not agree. The trial judge carefully explained why he concluded as he did. Mr. Straub simply called no evidence credible to the trial judge that his payments were meant in any way to be interest.
2Second, Mr. Straub challenges the trial judge’s treatment of the $96,500 payment he made to his mother. We cannot agree with his argument. First, we see nothing to suggest that counsel for the respondent acted improperly in any way in tendering exhibits in this trial. Second, we agree with the trial judge’s observation that the calculation of amounts in this case was challenging and difficult to say the least. Third, in our view, it was entirely open to the trial judge to find that the $96,500 payment should be treated as repayment by the appellant of his of loan from his mother, and for the trial judge to accept his evidence of the amount of that loan. This argument fails.
3Third, he quarrels with the trial judge’s reduction of the valuation of the principal residence by $40,000. The reasons of the trial judge clearly reveal why he did so, and there was ample evidence from Ms. Straub’s expert to sustain his conclusion. While the trial judge expressed some concern about parts of her evidence, it was open to him to accept this aspect of her testimony.
4Finally, Mr. Straub challenges the trial judge’s valuation of the cottage property because Ms. Straub’s expert had been criticized by his professional association on this very appraisal. We reject this argument. The trial judge explained that this criticism was not determining because it in no way touched the reliability of the amount. The trial judge was performing the role required of him in determining whether or not to accept that opinion evidence. There is no basis for us to interfere with what he did. In the end, the appeal is dismissed. Costs of the appeal to Ms. Straub in the amount of $8,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.
