Parbattie v. Rooplall, 2016 ONSC 5740

Parbattie v. Rooplall, 2016 ONSC 5740

CITATION: Parbattie v. Rooplall, 2016 ONSC 5740

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 485/15 DATE: 20160913

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT

BETWEEN:

Gowri Parbattie

Plaintiff (Appellant)

– and –

Steve Rooplall, O/A All Canada Refrigera, AKA Canada Refrigera, AKA All Major Appliance; Sandra Rooplall, O/A All Canada Refrigera, AKA All Canada Refrigera

Defendant (Respondent)

Gowri Parbattie, self-represented

Sandra Rooplall, self-represented

HEARD at Toronto: September 13, 2016

DAMBROT J. (Orally)

1This is an appeal from the judgment of Deputy Judge Clemenhagen dismissing a claim against the defendant.

Background

2The plaintiff made a loan of $10,000.00 by way of a cheque payable to Steve Rooplall. The loan was never repaid.

3The plaintiff obtained a judgment against Steve Rooplall, but claimed at trial that Sandra Rooplall was jointly liable with him. The plaintiff said that the loan was a business loan to both parties. The defendant denied this.

Trial Decision

4After hearing their evidence, the trail judge ruled:

Unless I see a written document, which is exceedingly thin in this case, relating to this loan, indicating it was a loan for the business of Sandra Rooplall, or in fact a joint loan, I am going to go with the facts, which would indicate that the draft was only to Steve Rooplall, that the payment was only to him and that he only – only he endorsed it. He got the money. What he did with it had nothing to do with his ex-wife at that point in time.

5At the end of his judgment, he concluded:

Therefore I have no choice but to go along with all of the written documentation, which would indicate that this loan was only to the defendant, Steven Rooplall.

Therefore the judgment which is in effect against him remains and the action as against Sandra is dismissed.

Analysis

6The plaintiff is very sincere and indeed is most persuasive. In effect however, she is asking me to retry this case and substitute different findings of fact for those made by the trial judge.

7Although I am most sympathetic to the plaintiff who has clearly been wronged at least by the male defendant, it is not opened to me to do what she asks absent some showing of an error on the part of the trial judge. I see none. As a result this appeal must be dismissed.

8In all of the circumstances, I do not think that the Deputy Judge was justified in awarding costs against the plaintiff in the amount of $1,500.00 and I reduce those costs to $500.00.

9I award no costs in this appeal.

COSTS

Costs

10I have endorsed the Appeal Book and Compendium as follows: “Appeal dismissed for oral reasons delivered in Court. Costs before the trial judge reduced to $500.00. No costs of this appeal.”

___________________________ DAMBROT J.