COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Roberts, Coroza and Pomerance JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Marian Massaar
Plaintiff (Respondent)
and
Anthony Moneck* and Lauren Moneck**
Defendants (Appellant*/Respondent**)
Andrew J. Kania and Meagan H. D’Mello, for the appellant
Anisha Bhardwaj, for the respondent Marian Massaar
Mervyn F. White, for the respondent Lauren Moneck
Heard and rendered orally: June 23, 2026
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Susan E. Healey of the Superior Court of Justice, dated December 10, 2024, with reasons reported at 2024 ONSC 6889.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1The issue before the motion judge in this case was a narrow one: whether the money advanced by the respondent, Marian Massaar, to her daughter, Lauren Moneck, and son-in-law, Anthony Moneck, was a gift or a loan. The motion judge found that the advance was a loan. The appellant son-in-law appeals from this decision.
2In oral submissions, the appellant advanced one overarching argument on appeal, namely, that the motion judge should not have made credibility findings on a paper record and should have ordered a mini-trial or sent the matter to trial. The appellant asks that we allow the appeal, set aside the order and remit the matter for trial.
3We see no reversible error in the motion judge’s careful reasons.
4The motion judge determined that she could fairly and justly decide the merits of the dispute on a paper record. That was the motion judge’s call to make and we see no reason to disturb it.
5The motion judge recognized that the more crucial credibility disputes are to determining key issues, the harder it will be to fairly adjudicate those issues solely on a paper record: see Cook v. Joyce, 2017 ONCA 49, at para. 92.
6The motion judge’s exercise of her discretion not to hold a mini-trial or trial requiring oral evidence is owed deference, unless it can be shown that there was a reversible error in her decision to decide the motion based on the documentary evidence that was filed on the motion.
7We see no error in the motion judge’s decision to proceed on the paper record. Indeed, the record filed before the motion judge was extensive and much of it was contemporaneous. The record included affidavits, transcripts of examinations, bank statements, letters, e-mails and text messages. The motion judge relied on documentary evidence that supported the respondent and her daughter’s position that the advance was a loan. The motion judge also examined the documentary evidence of the appellant and found that it was internally inconsistent and illogical when viewed against the totality of the evidence. These findings were available for her to make. We see no reason to disturb them.
8It was open to her to find that the record was sufficient for her to make credibility findings. We do not see what oral evidence would have added to the extensive record filed before the motion judge.
9We see no merit to the other submissions advanced in oral argument that effectively asks us to redo the motion. We see no palpable and overriding error in the facts found by the motion judge. Most of the grounds of appeal advanced by the appellant are simply requests that this court make different factual findings from those found by the motion judge. This is not our role.
10Accordingly, for these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
11As the successful parties, the respondents are entitled to reasonable costs of the appeal. The respondent Marian Masaar seeks partial indemnity costs in the amount of $9,909.65. The respondent Lauren Moneck seeks substantial indemnity costs in the amount of $14,138.34, on the basis that the appeal was meritless and the appellant has repeatedly advanced unfounded allegations of fraud against her, both in the court below and again on appeal.
12After considering the parties’ submissions, we order costs of the appeal to be paid by the appellant to Marian Massar on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $9,909.65 all-inclusive.
13With respect to Lauren Moneck, we agree that this is one of those exceptional cases where she is entitled to costs on a substantial indemnity basis. Lauren Moneck “ought not to have been put to the expense of responding to this appeal, which was entirely without merit, nor to the appellant’s repetition of his baseless assertions that [her] actions constituted fraud and perjury”: Rudin-Brown v. Brown, 2023 ONCA 151, 167 O.R. (3d) 374, at para. 8.
14Accordingly, we order costs of the appeal to be paid by the appellant to Lauren Moneck on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed in the amount of $14,138.34 all-inclusive.
“L.B. Roberts J.A.”
“S. Coroza J.A.”
“R. Pomerance J.A.”