Petre v. Petre
The trial judge's factual findings were not shown to be erroneous and no legal error was demonstrated; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the separation agreement remains in force.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2015 ONCA 199
- Parties
- Appellant: Stefan Gheorghe Petre; Respondent: Laura Emilia Petre
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 26 March 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Family / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Separation Agreement, Hidden Assets, Debt Allocation, Undue Influence, Date of Separation, Findings of Fact, Appeal Standard
- 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
Stefan Gheorghe Petre
Appellant
Laura Emilia Petre
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Family / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the separation agreement should be set aside
- 2 Whether the wife concealed assets
- 3 Whether debts the appellant assumed were joint debts
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge's factual findings were not shown to be erroneous and no legal error was demonstrated; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the separation agreement remains in force.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed; trial judgment dismissing the request to set aside the separation agreement is upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Petre v. Petre Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2015-03-26 Neutral citation 2015 ONCA 199 Docket numbers C59652 Judges Simmons, Janet M.; Tulloch, Michael H.; Pardu, Gladys I. Subject Family Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Petre v. Petre, 2015 ONCA 199 DATE: 20150325 DOCKET: C59652 Simmons, Tulloch and Pardu JJ.A. BETWEEN Stefan Gheorghe Petre Appellant and Laura Emilia Petre Respondent Stefan Petre, in person Laura Petre, in person Heard: March 18, 2015 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Emile R. Kruzick of the Superior Court of Justice, dated November 18, 2014. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The trial judge dismissed the appellant’s request for an order setting aside the parties’ separation agreement. In doing so, the trial judge fully canvassed the appellant’s arguments that: the wife had hidden assets; that certain debts he (the appellant) had assumed were actually joint debts; that he (the appellant) was pressured into signing the separation agreement; and that the parties did not separate until 2012. The trial judge made findings of fact against the appellant on all of these issues. [2] The appellant has not demonstrated any basis on which this court could interfere with the trial judge’s finding of fact; nor has he demonstrated any error in law in the trial judge’s reasons. [3] The appeal is therefore dismissed.