Court File and Parties

Citation: El-Guindi v. Liddar, 2008 ONCA 848 Date: 20081215 Docket: C48961

Court of Appeal for Ontario Cronk, Gillese and Epstein JJ.A.

Between:

Emadeldin El-Guindi, Irene El-Guindy and Gamal Elguindy Appellants (Plaintiffs)

and

Ajit Liddar Respondent (Defendant)

Counsel: Irene El-Guindy, in person Aziz El-Guindy, in person Ajit Liddar, in person

Heard and released orally: December 5, 2008

On appeal from the order of Justice T. O’Connor of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 16, 2008.

Endorsement

[1] The appellants appeal from the motion judge’s order dated June 16, 2008 staying their action for non-payment of the respondent’s costs, ordered by the motion judge in November 2006. The operative paragraph of the motion judge’s impugned order provides: “[T]he Plaintiffs’ proceeding is stayed unless and until he pays the costs ordered by this Court on November 16, 2006, of $3,000.”

[2] For the following reasons, we conclude that the appeal must be dismissed.

[3] The appellants allege that the motion judge erred by failing to consider their motion that he recuse himself on the basis of alleged conflict of interest or bias.

[4] We do not accept this argument. In our view, it is implicit from the motion judge’s reasons that he both considered and rejected the appellants’ claims of conflict of interest and bias.

[5] There was no evidence before the motion judge to support the assertion of a conflict of interest or bias. The appellants’ claims of conflict of interest and bias were based only on the fact that the same motion judge heard other prior motions involving these parties and some of his rulings were adverse to the appellants. This is insufficient to meet the high threshold required to establish a judicial conflict of interest or bias. In addition, it appears that the motion judge was appointed by Durno R.S.J. of the Superior Court of Justice to hear all motions in this case.

[6] On the merits of the order in issue, the record before us establishes a long history by the appellants, in particular the appellant Emadeldin El-Guindi, of failing to comply with multiple costs orders made by numerous judges. The order in this case was discretionary in nature. It was permitted under the Rules of Civil Procedure in the circumstances of this case. We see no error in the reasoning of the motion judge in support of his order, nor do we accept the appellants’ submission that his reasons are deficient. The reasons are sufficient to enable the appellants to understand why their arguments were not accepted and to permit meaningful appellate review.

[7] Finally, we note that there was no evidence of the asserted impecuniosity of Mr. El-Guindi before the motion judge. Indeed, there was a previous judicial finding to the contrary.

[8] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. The respondent is entitled to his costs of the appeal, payable by the appellants, in the fixed amount of $1,000, inclusive of disbursements and G.S.T.

“E.A. Cronk J.A.”

“E.E. Gillese J.A.”

“G. Epstein J.A.”