DATE: 20050118

DOCKET: C40076

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

ROMA A. MARCUS aka ROMA NELSON (Petitioner/Respondent) v. CALVIN BARRINGTON MARCUS AND RACHEL MARCUS (Respondents/Appellants)

BEFORE:

DOHERTY, BORINS and SHARPE JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

B. Kenwell

for Calvin Marcus

Roma Marcus

appearing in person

HEARD & ENDORSED:

January 18, 2005

On appeal from the decision of Justice N. Backhouse of the Superior Court of Justice dated May 16, 2003.

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

[1] Counsel raises two specific objections to the trial judge’s determination. First, he argues that the trial judge should have used a 5% commission rate rather than a 6% commission rate in calculating the notional value of the matrimonial home. We cannot agree that real estate commission rates are a matter of judicial notice and we see no error in the rate selected by the trial judge.

[2] The trial judge’s disposition of the vehicle was fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case. We would not interfere with the trial judge’s disposition.

[3] The third ground of appeal argued by counsel is a more global challenge to the trial judge’s finding and cannot succeed in light of our disposition of the specific arguments made by counsel.

[4] The appeal is dismissed.

[5] The respondent is entitled to her disbursements and the employment costs associated with today’s attendance. We fix those costs at $600.00.