DATE: 20060220

DOCKET: C43621

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

JACQUELINE CHRISTINE MERGELOS (Applicant/Respondent) v. ELIAS ANTHONY MERGELOS (Respondent/Appellant)

BEFORE:

DOHERTY, ROSENBERG and JURIANSZ JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

Ted Laan for the appellant

D. Smith for the respondent

HEARD & ENDORSED:

February 17, 2006

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Murray of the Superior Court of Justice dated April 27, 2005.

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

[1] There were no material facts in dispute. The motion judge was entitled to look at the entirety of the circumstances surrounding the making and signing of the Minutes of Settlement given the apparent inconsistency in some of the language used in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Minutes of Settlement and the language of the releases.

[2] The entirety of the circumstances compels the conclusion reached by the motion judge. The reference in paragraphs 3 and 4 to further negotiations concerning the final equalization payment are limited to any negotiations relating to the ultimate disposition of all or part of the single discrete asset referred to in those paragraphs (the $632,000 paid into court) by the respondent.

[3] The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent in the amount of $10,000, inclusive of GST and disbursements.