Timing & Property Claims – Themistocleous v. Themistocleous (CA)

The appellant in this case was the father/father-in-law of the couple who was separating. The appellant was appealing a decision of Justice Borkovich, who on February 6, 2008, dismissed his action for the return of money he claimed was a loan, not a gift, made to his son and former daughter-in-law during their marriage to one another. The Appellant further argued that the trial judge had made palpable and overriding errors in certain factual findings, which led to an unjust result that should be overturned on appeal.

The Court of Appeal, however, disagreed with the appellant’s arguments, deciding that there was in fact no reversible error made by the Trial judge. The Court of Appeal commented on how “there [was] 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”. Evidently, the timing of the appellant’s claim was a legitimate issue for both the trial judge and the appeal judge. The appeal was dismissed.

Categories:

Take The First Step

Fill out the form below to begin your free consultation with
one of our experienced lawyers or call us at (905) 581-7222.

    • Please enter your first name.
    • Please enter your middle name.
    • Please enter your last name.
    • This isn't a valid phone number.
    • Please enter your email address.
      This isn't a valid email address.
    • Please make a selection.
    • Please make a selection.
    • Please make a selection.
    • Please make a selection.
Put Us On Your Side