Royal Bank of Canada v. Central Canadian Industrial Inc., 2007 ONCA 360

DATE: 20070514

DOCKET: C45110

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

BORINS and MACFARLAND JJ.A., and CUNNINGHAM A.C.J. (ad hoc)

BETWEEN:

ROYAL BANK OF CANADA

(Plaintiff/Respondent)

and

CENTRAL CANADIAN INDUSTRIAL INC., VLADEN MATUTSCHOVSKY a.k.a. VLADEN MATUTSCHOYSKY a.k.a. VLADEN MATUTSCHOUSKY a.k.a. VLADEN MATUSOVSKI and KATHERINE MATUTSCHOVSKY a.k.a. EKATRINA MATUTSCHOYSKY a.k.a. EKATERINA WEIS MATUTSCHOVSKY a.k.a. KATHRYN MATUSHOVSKY a.k.a. KATHERINE MATUTSCHOUSKY

(Defendants/Appellant)

Katherine Matushovsky, appellant appearing in-person

G. Bowden, for the respondent

Heard: May 10, 2007

On appeal from the order of Justice John C. Murray of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 24, 2006.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] The only issue at trial was whether the appellant signed the $50,000 guarantee. The trial judge accepted the evidence of the Bank employee, Patricia Horan, that the appellant signed it. He rejected the evidence of the appellant that she did not sign the guarantee and that her signature on it had been forged by her common law husband, who acted in collusion with two bank employees to whom he paid a bribe of $11,200 to obtain a loan of $50,000. Moreover, there was expert evidence that confirmed the probability that the appellant had signed the guarantee.

[2] In an attempt to persuade the court that the trial judge was wrong, the appellant alleged that there were deficiencies in the trial transcript and that an important exhibit was missing. Following the appellant’s complaint to the Attorney General, an investigation of the transcript took place that identified six inconsequential errors or discrepancies. The appellant conceded that these discrepancies made no difference to the accuracy of the transcript. However, she insisted that there were many more serious deficiencies. She produced no evidence to support this allegation.

[3] In respect to the missing exhibit, the appellant failed to demonstrate how it would establish that the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error in finding that she had signed the $50,000 guarantee.

[4] The appellant alleged that the trial judge was biased, but failed to produce any evidence to support this allegation.

[5] We are satisfied that the trial judge was correct in finding that the appellant had signed the guarantee. This finding was clearly available on the evidence.

[6] Appeal is dismissed with costs fixed in the amount of $15,805.66.