Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2025-06-04
Docket: COA-24-CV-0110
Coram: Grant Huscroft, Gary Trotter, L. Favreau

Between

Jamshid Nayyer
Plaintiff (Respondent)

and

Danping Wang also known as Linda Wang and Shi Gang Ni also known as Simon Ni
Defendants (Appellants)

James Clark, for the appellant
Joel Levitt, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: June 3, 2025

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Eugenia Papageorgiou of the Superior Court of Justice, dated January 5, 2024, with reasons reported at 2024 ONSC 137.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant appeals a judgment awarding $555,000 to the respondent for breach of contract. The trial judge found that the appellant and the respondent had a valid oral agreement that entitled the respondent to a 20% interest in a property at 29 Fanshawe Drive, and later in a 20% interest in a property at 23 Spruceview Place. The trial judge further found that the parties later agreed that the respondent would exchange his 20% interest in the Spruceview property for a full interest in a condominium at 3 Everson Drive. Given that the appellant sold the condominium before trial, the trial judge found that the respondent is entitled to the proceeds of sale for the Everson property, namely $555,000.

[2] We see no errors in the trial judge’s decision. Her decision was primarily based on findings that the appellant’s evidence was not credible. The trial judge provided multiple examples in support of her finding that the evidence of the appellant, her husband and her mother was not credible. She was also satisfied that the respondent’s evidence of the agreement between the parties was largely supported by documentary evidence, including payments he made to the appellant at the time she purchased the Fanshawe and Spruceview properties, and other payments he made in relation to the Everson property. We see no error in the trial judge’s assessment of the evidence. Her credibility findings are entitled to deference.

[3] We do not accept the appellant’s argument that the trial judge reversed the burden of proof. She did not only base her decision on the appellant’s lack of credibility but also on findings that the respondent had proven his case through his testimony and documentary evidence.

[4] Finally, we do not agree that the trial judge erred in awarding the full value of the condominium to the respondent, rather than only half. This issue was not raised at trial. In any event, as found by the trial judge the issue of whether the respondent’s ex-spouse, who is also the appellant’s mother, is entitled to a portion of the $555,000 is a family law matter to be decided between the respondent and his ex-spouse. As found by the trial judge, there was no evidence that the appellant’s mother contributed financially to the agreement between the parties, and therefore any entitlement she may have would arise for equalization of property in the family law context rather than in the context of this dispute between the appellant and the respondent.

[5] The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

[6] As agreed between the parties, the respondent is entitled to $15,000 in costs all inclusive.

“Grant Huscroft J.A.”
“Gary Trotter J.A.”
“L. Favreau J.A.”