Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: Themistocleous v. Themistocleous, 2009 ONCA 15

Date: 20090108

Docket: C48444

Before: Laskin, MacPherson and Armstrong JJ.A.

Between:

Themis Themistocleous

Plaintiff (Appellant)

and

Tassos Themistocleous and Ekaterina Leonida Themistocleous

Defendants (Respondents)

Counsel:

J.D. Linton, for the appellant

G.V. Schaffer, for the respondents

Heard: January 6, 2009

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Nick Borkovich of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 6, 2008.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant appeals from the judgment of Borkovich J. dated 6 February 2008, dismissing his action for the return of money he claimed was a loan, not a gift, to his son and former daughter-in-law.

[2] The appellant submits that the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in certain factual findings which led to an unjust result in this case.

[3] We disagree. Although the trial judge’s reasons are brief, we cannot see a reversible error in them. Essentially, the trial judge believed the testimony of the appellant’s former daughter-in-law and disbelieved the conflicting testimony of the appellant and his son. He was entitled to do this. Moreover, there is support in the record, including the suspicious timing of the father’s demand for repayment (mere days before the separation of his son and former daughter-in-law) for the trial judge’s decision.

[4] The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent fixed at $6500 inclusive of disbursements and GST.