Court File and Parties

Citation: Bahadori v. Samadzadeh, 2009 ONCA 10

Date: 20090108

Docket: C48722

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Before: Doherty, Weiler and MacFarland JJ.A.

Between

Marzieh Bano Bahadori

Applicant (Appellant)

and

Mehrdad Faiz Samadzadeh

Respondent (Respondent)

Counsel:

Marzieh Bano Bahadori, acting in person

Mehrdad Faiz Samadzadeh, acting in person

Heard and released orally: January 7, 2009

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Nancy Backhouse of the Ontario Court of Justice dated March 20, 2008.

Endorsement

[1] This appeal is transferred to the Divisional Court, without prejudice, on the basis that we do not have jurisdiction to hear it.

[2] The order being appealed provides for child support for the son, Mehrtash Samadzadeh, at $250 per month, terminates child support for the daughter, Mahsa Samadzadeh, and dismisses the mother’s claim for retroactive support. The order was made in response to the father’s variation motion and the mother’s cross-motion to vary support for both children. The mother seeks support of $434 per month for her son as well as retroactive support in respect of both children totalling $16,566. Prior to the motion, the father was paying support for both children in the amount of $310.28 per month.

[3] Section 19(1.2)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 provides that if the appeal relates to a final order “for periodic payments that amount to not more than $50,000, exclusive of costs in the 12 months commencing on the date the first payment is due under the order”, the appeal is to be heard in the Divisional Court. In relation to the order for Mehrtash, the amount in issue is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court. Section 19(1.2)(c) provides that if the appeal relates to a final order “dismissing a claim for an amount that is not more than” $50,000 (or periodic payments totalling $50,000 in the 12 months commencing on the date the first payment is due), exclusive of costs, the appeal lies to the Divisional Court. The termination of support for Mahsa amounted to a dismissal of the mother’s cross-motion for increased support of less than $50,000 and the total amount for both children is significantly less than periodic payments totalling $50,000 per year.

[4] In respect of the claim for retroactive support, pursuant to s. 19(1.2)(a), the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court extends to a final order “for a single payment of not more than $50,000, exclusive of costs” and the amount in issue here is, again, significantly below that amount.

[5] Accordingly, the appeal is transferred to the Divisional Court to a date to be fixed by the Registrar.

“Doherty J.A.”

“K.M. Weiler J.A.”

“J. MacFarland J.A.”