COURT FILE NO.: 211/09
DATE: 20090914
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
ALI CHAMAS Applicant (Respondent in Appeal)
- and -
MANAL CHAMAS Respondent (Appellant)
Richard H. Parker, Q.C., for the Applicant (Respondent in Appeal) Julie Amourgis, for the Respondent (Appellant in Appeal)
HEARD at Toronto: September 14, 2009
JANET WILSON J.: (Orally)
1The request for leave to appeal from the interim order for support made by Jarvis J. on April 21, 2009 is dismissed.
2The motions court judge ordered interim spousal support payable in the amount of $750.00 per month and as well ordered an early trial date. The matter is scheduled for trial today but cannot proceed due to this motion for leave to appeal.
3The appellant husband relies on Rule 62.02(4)(b) of the Rules of Civil Proceedure. He. argues first, that there is good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision made, and second, that the appeal raises matters of such importance to justify this matter being considered by a full panel of the Divisional Court.
Correctness
4The husband alleges that for medical reasons he cannot work, and that his only source of income is modest disability income. The wife challenged the husband’s assertions. The motions court judge observed an established pattern of earnings over the years until this motion was brought, and imputed income to the husband. The motions court judge set an early trial date for trial and observed that the facts with respect to the husband’s earnings and ability to work would be clarified at an early date.
5There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision made before the motions court judge based on the material before him. The first branch of Rule 62.02(4)(b) therefore has not been met.
Importance
6Further, this case does not constitute a matter of general importance, and illustrates why motions for leave to appeal with respect to interim support should be discouraged. The parties could have proceeded today for trial to determine the issues on the merits on a final basis. Instead they are before the court today debating a time-limited, interim order. The threshold of importance involves matters of general importance, not merely an issue that is important to the parties.
7As outlined in Greslik v. Ontario Legal Aid Plan of the Law Society of Upper Canada (1988), 65 O.R. (2d) 110 (Div. Ct) at paragraph 7, the judge hearing a motion for leave to appeal must be satisfied that the matters involved are of such importance that in his or her opinion leave should be granted, and that caution should be exercised in assessing what constitutes general importance:
We wish to draw to the attention of the members of this Court and the profession at large that those words refer to matters of general importance, not matters of particular importance relevant only to the litigants. General importance relates to matters relevant to the development of the law and the administration of justice.
(See also Jessome v. Jessome (1998) 43 RFL (4th) 196 at para. 8.)
8This appeal, although clearly important to the parties involved, does not come close to meeting the threshold test of public importance contemplated by Rule 62.02(4)(b).
9For these reasons, the motion for leave to appeal is dismissed.
COSTS
10Costs fixed payable by the husband to the wife in the amount of $1,700.00.
JANET WILSON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: September 14, 2009
Date of Release: September 21, 2009
COURT FILE NO.: 211/09
DATE: 20090914
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
ALI CHAMAS Applicant (Respondent in Appeal)
- and -
MANAL CHAMAS Respondent (Appellant)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JANET WILSON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: September 14, 2009
Date of Release: September 21, 2009