COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Taranom v. Karaoglu, 2013 ONCA 444

DATE: 20130625

DOCKET: C56136

Goudge, Juriansz and Strathy JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Aresh Taranom

Plaintiff (Respondent)

and

Mehmet Fatih Karaoglu

Defendant (Appellant)

Jarvis K. Postnikoff, for the appellant

Brian R. Kelly, for the respondent

Heard: June 21, 2013

On appeal from the judgment of Justice James W. Sloan of the Superior Court of Justice, dated September 26, 2012.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant raises three arguments. First, he says the trial was not fair particularly since he was self-represented. We do not agree. We do not view the questions pointed to by the appellant as leading. Nor do we see an error in the ruling of irrelevance made by the trial judge. Finally, the impeachment of the appellant was properly based on his discovery transcript.

[2] Second, we disagree with the appellant’s assertion that there was insufficient evidence that the advances were all made by the respondent. The finding that the trial judge made on this issue was amply anchored in the evidence.

[3] Thirdly, the appellant argues that there was insufficient legal justification for the return of the respondent’s Philly Cheese investment. We disagree. The respondent advanced the money. The appellant did not account for it and the trial judge was therefore entitled to order its return.

[4] The appeal must be dismissed. Costs to the respondent in the amount of $10,000 all inclusive.