COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Miller, Trotter and Copeland JJ.A.
BETWEEN
David Peyman
Applicant (Respondent)
and
Kelley Peyman
Respondent (Appellant)
Counsel:
Brian Hall, for the appellant
Taragh Bracken, for the respondent
Heard and released orally: March 7, 2025
On appeal from the order of Justice Margaret A. Scott of the Superior Court of Justice, dated July 8, 2024.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1The appellant argues that the motion judge misapprehended the evidence on two issues: first, that she misapprehended the “interpretation” of the quitclaim deed; second, that she misapprehended the evidence about the tax consequences that were part of the respondent’s motivation for executing the quitclaim deed.
2We disagree. The interpretation of the quitclaim deed is not a matter of evidence. Rather, it is a matter of the motion judge interpreting the quitclaim deed and making findings about the parties’ intentions. The motion judge did not misapprehend any evidence related to the quitclaim deed.
3We also reject the submission that the motion judge misapprehended the evidence in relation to the tax consequences of the quitclaim deed. The motion judge expressly referred to tax consequences being part of the motivation for the quitclaim deed. She disagreed with the appellant about the relevance of the quitclaim being partly motivated by tax consequences. That is not a misapprehension of evidence.
4The appeal is dismissed.
5The respondent is entitled to costs of the appeal in the amount of $7,000, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.
“B.W. Miller J.A.”
“Gary Trotter J.A.”
“J. Copeland J.A.”