Baumgarten v. Kemp
The motion judge’s factual findings—that the 2022 Honda purchase was unnecessary, the customizations added little value, and there was limited evidence to alter findings on James Kemp’s salary—were supported by the record and not unreasonable; accordingly there was no basis for appellate interference and the appeal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2025 ONCA 456
- Parties
- Plaintiff/respondent: Michele Baumgarten; Plaintiff/respondent: Driftwood Beach Park Limited; Plaintiff/respondent: 1581785 Ontario Inc.; Plaintiff/respondent: A. Baumgarten & Sons Limited; Plaintiff/respondent: Pigamint Investment Corporation; Defendant/appellant: Audrey Lynn Kemp; Defendant/appellant: James Kemp; Defendant/appellant: Driftwood Beach Park Limited; Defendant/appellant: 1581787 Ontario Inc.; Defendant/appellant: A. Baumgarten & Sons Limited; Defendant/appellant: Pigamint Investment Corporation
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 20 June 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal From Superior Court of Justice Order / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Motion Judge Concerning Distribution of Trust Funds
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Distribution of Trust Funds, Reimbursement, Unnecessary Corporate Expenditure, Compensation and Salary, Standard of Appellate Review, Motion Judge Discretion
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Michele Baumgarten
Plaintiff/respondent
Driftwood Beach Park Limited
Plaintiff/respondent
1581785 Ontario Inc.
Plaintiff/respondent
A. Baumgarten & Sons Limited
Plaintiff/respondent
Pigamint Investment Corporation
Plaintiff/respondent
Audrey Lynn Kemp
Defendant/appellant
James Kemp
Defendant/appellant
Driftwood Beach Park Limited
Defendant/appellant
1581787 Ontario Inc.
Defendant/appellant
A. Baumgarten & Sons Limited
Defendant/appellant
Pigamint Investment Corporation
Defendant/appellant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Superior Court of Justice Order / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Motion Judge Concerning Distribution of Trust Funds
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the motion judge erred in directing distribution of funds remaining in trust following corporate asset sale and reimbursements
- 2 Whether the purchase and customizations of the 2022 Honda were unnecessary and whether their value should be deducted from company funds
- 3 Whether the motion judge erred in findings about appropriate salary for James Kemp
Ratio Decidendi
The motion judge’s factual findings—that the 2022 Honda purchase was unnecessary, the customizations added little value, and there was limited evidence to alter findings on James Kemp’s salary—were supported by the record and not unreasonable; accordingly there was no basis for appellate interference and the appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs of the appeal to the respondents on a partial indemnity scale in the agreed-upon amount of $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Baumgarten v. Kemp Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2025-06-20 Neutral citation 2025 ONCA 456 Docket numbers COA-24-CV-0432 Judges Simmons, Janet M.; Rouleau, Paul S.; Pepall, Sarah E. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Baumgarten v. Kemp, 2025 ONCA 456 DATE: 20250620 DOCKET: COA-24-CV-0432 Simmons, Rouleau and Pepall JJ.A. BETWEEN Michele Baumgarten*, Driftwood Beach Park Limited, 1581785 Ontario Inc., A. Baumgarten & Sons Limited and Pigamint Investment Corporation Plaintiffs (Respondent*) and Audrey Lynn Kemp*, James Kemp*, Driftwood Beach Park Limited, 1581787 Ontario Inc., A. Baumgarten & Sons Limited and Pigamint Investment Corporation Defendants (Appellants*) Gregory F. Stewart, for the appellants Robert W. Scriven, for the respondent Heard and released orally: June 18, 2025 On appeal from the order of Justice Michael J. Valente of the Superior Court of Justice, dated March 18, 2024. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellants appeal from an order giving directions concerning the distribution of funds remaining in trust following the sale of the assets of Driftwood Beach Park Limited and reimbursement of funds by certain of the appellants to that company. [2] We see no basis on which to interfere with the motion judge’s determinations. [3] Particularly in light of the motion judge’s finding that the purchase of the 2022 Honda was unnecessary, his conclusion that the customizations to that vehicle added little, if any, value to the company was available on the record, and not unreasonable. [4] Further, given the limited evidence concerning an appropriate salary for James Kemp, we would not interfere with the motion judge’s finding on that issue on the same basis. [5] As for Ms. Kemp’s argument that the trial judge erred concerning her compensation, the notice of motion sought directions from the court. In the circumstances, it was open to the motion judge not to accept Ms. Baumgarten’s concession. This was particularly so in light of the motion judge’s decision not to award Ms. Baumgarten compensation for the work she did, and overall principles of fairness. [6] The appeal is dismissed. [7] Costs of the appeal are to the respondents on a partial indemnity scale in the agreed-upon amount of $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST. “Janet Simmons J.A.” “Paul Rouleau J.A.” “S.E. Pepall J.A.”