Mohamed El Rashidy

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Rahman J. dated November 2, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice dated December 16, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $4,800.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a costs order from the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court considered whether to dismiss the motion for leave to appeal as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, given doubts about the Divisional Court's jurisdiction over family law appeals from the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court declined to dismiss the motion under Rule 2.1, finding no indication that the appellant was being abusive or vexatious, and directed that the motion proceed in the ordinary course.

The respondent consented to the appeal.

The Court of Appeal found that the order of Carey J. dated July 24, 2018 was made without jurisdiction, as an order under Rule 31.10 cannot be made without a proceeding having been undertaken in Ontario.

The order was set aside.

The respondent undertook not to enforce the order of Bondy J. dated July 17, 2018.

Costs were awarded to the appellant.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's interpretation of a contractual term, his factual finding regarding waiver of the time limit for performance, and his damages award.

The Court of Appeal applied the deferential standard of review established in Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp. and found that the trial judge's interpretation of the poorly drafted contractual clause was reasonable and that there were no palpable and overriding errors in the factual findings.

The award of reliance damages was also found to be reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.