COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Peyman v. Peyman, 2025 ONCA 190

DATE: 20250310

DOCKET: COA-24-CV-0889

Miller, Trotter and Copeland JJ.A.

BETWEEN

David Peyman

Applicant (Respondent)

and

Kelley Peyman

Respondent (Appellant)

Counsel:

Brian Hall, for the appellant

Taragh Bracken, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: March 7, 2025

On appeal from the order of Justice Margaret A. Scott of the Superior Court of Justice, dated July 8, 2024.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] The appellant argues that the motion judge misapprehended the evidence on two issues: first, that she misapprehended the “interpretation” of the quitclaim deed; second, that she misapprehended the evidence about the tax consequences that were part of the respondent’s motivation for executing the quitclaim deed.

[2] We disagree. The interpretation of the quitclaim deed is not a matter of evidence. Rather, it is a matter of the motion judge interpreting the quitclaim deed and making findings about the parties’ intentions. The motion judge did not misapprehend any evidence related to the quitclaim deed.

[3] We also reject the submission that the motion judge misapprehended the evidence in relation to the tax consequences of the quitclaim deed. The motion judge expressly referred to tax consequences being part of the motivation for the quitclaim deed. She disagreed with the appellant about the relevance of the quitclaim being partly motivated by tax consequences. That is not a misapprehension of evidence.

[4] The appeal is dismissed.

[5] The respondent is entitled to costs of the appeal in the amount of $7,000, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

“B.W. Miller J.A.”

“Gary Trotter J.A.”

“J. Copeland J.A.”