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.