Matvei Weig v. Roman Weig et al., 2008 ONCA 651

Case Summary

The appellants appealed a judgment enforcing a settlement agreement, arguing the motion judge erred in ordering a $725,000 payment in cash and seeking to rescind the agreement. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding the motion judge failed to consider evidence that the parties intended the sum to be paid via security, such as a promissory note or guarantee, rather than cash. The judgment was amended accordingly, but the appeal was otherwise dismissed, and the request to rescind the settlement agreement was rejected.

Court File and Parties

CITATION: Weig v. Weig, 2008 ONCA 651

DATE: 20080925

DOCKET: C48324

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Moldaver, Armstrong and Blair JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

Matvei Weig

Respondent/Applicant

and

Roman Weig, Leib Broner, Lev Spitzin, Benjamin Finkelstein, 2014210 Ontario Ltd., c.o.b. Deluxe International Group, 2014052 Ontario Ltd., c.o.b. Deluxe Windows Of Canada, 2014213 Ontario Ltd., c.o.b. Oakwood Fine Products, 1275330 Ontario Ltd., 973590 Ontario Ltd., Cleidons Deluxe Doors Inc., Cleidons Deluxe Windows Inc., Deluxe Developments International Inc., Deluxe Window Industries Inc., Riz Management Inc., Royal Deluxe Profiles Limited 1321867 Ontario Ltd., Northview Windows & Doors Inc., Evrica Enterprises Inc., Pride Windows And Doors Inc., 976017 Ontario Ltd., Floating Residence Inc., Oakwood Architectural Lumber Inc., Shrimp Deluxe Ltd., Vildrom Construction Ltd., Vimach Delux Arches Inc., Riga-22 Weg, LLC MTI Ltd., California Deluxe Windows Industries, Inc. Wrought Iron Art Ltd., Royal Deluxe Windows International, Inc., (U.S.), Stone Mason and Architectural Carvers Creators Ltd., Roman W. Marketing, 1273268 Ontario Ltd.

Appellants/Respondents

Benjamin Salsberg for the appellants

Scott Rosen for the respondent

Heard and endorsed: September 22, 2008

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Jim Spence of the Superior Court of Justice dated January 4, 2008.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] In determining that the $725,000 should be paid in cash, the motion judge failed to consider the evidence of the parties, including the respondent, and all of the witnesses to the agreement, who testified that the reference to the sum in question did not mean “cash funds” but “security in the said sum such as a promissory note or guarantee (being like a post-dated cheque)”. In view of that evidence, the settlement agreement as drafted, did not accurately reflect the parties’ intention or the agreement they arrived at. Accordingly, para. 2(a) of the judgment is amended to give effect to the above.

[2] The appeal is otherwise dismissed. We see no merit in the appellants’ submission that the settlement agreement should be rescinded. In this regard, we note that the oppression action against Duke and Dov Weig remains outstanding.

[3] Costs to respondent in the amount of $3,500 inclusive of G.S.T. and disbursements.

Matvei Weig v. Roman Weig et al., 2008 ONCA 651

Case Summary

Court File and Parties

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

Judges

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Financial Outcomes

Issues