DATE: 2004-02-09

DOCKET: C38443

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

CINDY-ANN GOLDSON (Appellant) v. VICTORIA GOLDSON (Respondent)

AND BETWEEN:

VICTORIA GOLDSON (Plaintiff by Counterclaim) v. CINDY-ANN GOLDSON AND JOYCE I. GOLDSON (Defendants by Counterclaim)

BEFORE:

McMURTRY C.J.O., CATZMAN AND ABELLA JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

Martha McCarthy

for the appellant

David A. Jarvis

for the respondent

HEARD & ENDORSED:

February 9, 2004

On appeal from the judgment of Justice S. Chapnik of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 4, 2002.

A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] We see no basis for interfering with the trial judge’s factual conclusions all of which were available on the record.

[2] Even assuming, without deciding, that the trial judge should have engaged in a more thorough “presumption of advancement” analysis, it is clear from her finding that she was of the view that the presumption of advancement had been rebutted (see para 58).

[3] The appeal is therefore dismissed.

[4] We also see no error in the trial judge’s discretion in the quantum of costs awarded. The respondent is entitled to her costs fixed in the amount of $12,500.00.