Cole v. Cole
Given the trial judge's adverse credibility finding and the evidence before him, it was within the trial judge's discretion to value the husband's business interest as he did and to apply the tax discount to the lump sum; there was no palpable error and the appeal is dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C27208
- Parties
- Petitioner/appellant: Richard Herbert Grant Cole; Respondent: Elizabeth Gayle Cole
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 12 November 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Family / Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Business Valuation in Family Proceedings, Tax Discount on Lump Sum Payment, Credibility Findings on Appeal
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Richard Herbert Grant Cole
Petitioner/appellant
Elizabeth Gayle Cole
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Family / Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge correctly valued the husband's business interest
- 2 Whether the trial judge properly applied a tax discount to the lump sum payment
- 3 Whether the trial judge's adverse credibility finding against the husband was reviewable on appeal
Ratio Decidendi
Given the trial judge's adverse credibility finding and the evidence before him, it was within the trial judge's discretion to value the husband's business interest as he did and to apply the tax discount to the lump sum; there was no palpable error and the appeal is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Cole v. Cole Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 1998-11-12 Docket numbers C27208 Judges Brooke, John Watson; Carthy, James Joseph; Goudge, Stephen Thomas Subject Family Decision Content DATE: 19981112 DOCKET: C27208 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: RICHARD HERBERT GRANT COLE (Petitioner/Appellant) v. ELIZABETH GAYLE COLE (Respondent/Respondent) BEFORE: BROOKE, CARTHY and GOUDGE JJ.A. COUNSEL: Hank Witteveen, for the appellant K. Shadbolt and E. Ashfield, for the respondent HEARD: November 10, 1998 ENDORSEMENT [1] In our view, given the trial judge's finding of credibility against the husband, it was open to the trial judge to value the husband's business interest as he did. Secondly, it was within his discretion, given the evidence before him, to make the discount for tax from the lump sum payment as he did. We see no palpable error in either finding and the appeal must be dismissed with costs.