Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2023-08-15 Docket: M54148 (COA-23-OM-0014)

Before: Hourigan, Brown and Monahan JJ.A.

Between: Ghareeb Awad and Transpacific Petroleum Corp. Applicants (Moving Parties)

And: Dover Investments Limited, Robert Salna and Dover Petroleum Corp. Respondents (Responding Parties)

Counsel: Ghareeb Awad, acting in person Howard Wolch, for the responding parties

Heard and released orally: August 14, 2023

On review of the order of Justice Gladys I. Pardu of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, dated March 21, 2023.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The motion judge dismissed a motion by the applicants to extend the time to appeal an order of Cavanaugh J. She found that the applicants promptly expressed an intention to challenge the order and acted with reasonable diligence in requesting an extension of time before this court. However, the motion judge determined that there would be serious prejudice to the respondents if an extension were granted given that Mr. Awad has made himself judgment-proof and that there are outstanding costs awards and judgments against him exceeding $1,000,000. The motion judge was also not persuaded that there was any merit to the proposed appeal, finding it is part of a well-established pattern of abuse of process engaged in by Mr. Awad. Further, considering the justice of the case, the motion judge was not satisfied that an extension of time should be granted.

[2] The applicants seek to set aside the motion judge’s decision. In so doing, they attack the integrity of various members of the judiciary, challenge prior decisions during the lengthy 20-year pan-Canadian litigation between the parties, and submit that other final decisions should be part of this court’s review should they be permitted to proceed with their appeal.

[3] A panel review of a motion judge’s decision under s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act is not a de novo determination, and discretionary decisions of a motion judge are entitled to deference: Machado v. Ontario Hockey Association, 2019 ONCA 210, at para. 9. We are not satisfied that the motion judge erred. Instead, she correctly applied the legal test for an extension of time to her factual findings, which were well rooted in the evidence. She properly dismissed the motion, which would have prolonged a patently unmeritorious appeal.

[4] The motion is dismissed.

[5] The moving parties shall pay costs in the all-inclusive amount of $8,000, on a partial indemnity basis, to the responding parties.

“C.W. Hourigan J.A.”

“David Brown J.A.”

“P.J. Monahan J.A.”