Court and Parties

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20240927 DOCKET: M55129 (M55063 & COA-24-CV-0196)

Before: Lauwers, Zarnett and Pomerance JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Faycal Saffih Respondent (Moving Party/Appellant)

and

Rima Sbih Applicant (Responding Party/Respondent)

Counsel: Faycal Saffih, acting in person Emma M. Dupuis, for the responding party

Heard: September 20, 2024

Reasons for Decision

[1] Mr. Saffih brings this motion for a panel review, seeking to set aside the order of Gomery J.A. (the “motion judge”) dated May 13, 2024, that refused to extend the time for him to perfect an appeal and to grant a stay pending final determination of that appeal.

[2] The decision that Mr. Saffih sought to appeal is a judgment of Williams J. of the Superior Court of Justice dated January 19, 2024. Williams J. ordered, among other things, that Mr. Saffih pay spousal and child support, that the responding party, Ms. Sbih, have primary care of, and decision-making authority for, the parties’ four children, and that amounts owed by Mr. Saffih to Ms. Sbih be paid by a transfer to her of his interest in the matrimonial home.

[3] Mr. Saffih delivered a notice of appeal in a timely manner but missed the deadline to perfect the appeal; hence the request for an extension. The motion judge instructed herself, based on this court’s authorities, that an extension may be ordered when required by the justice of the case, and on the four factors generally considered. She held that two factors supported refusing the extension – that the appeal had no merit, and that Ms. Sbih and the children would be prejudiced by further delay. Given that the extension of time was refused, she also refused Mr. Saffih’s request for a stay pending appeal.

[4] A motion to review the order of a single judge of this court under s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, is not a rehearing. A panel of this court may interfere with the order under review if the motion judge failed to identify the applicable principles, erred in principle, or reached an unreasonable result: Student A v. Toronto French School, 2024 ONCA 83, at para. 13, citing Weidenfeld v. Weidenfeld, 2022 ONCA 860, at para. 11.

[5] The motion judge identified the applicable principles. We see no error in principle in her discretionary decision. Nor was the result unreasonable.

[6] Against the finding that the appeal lacked merit, Mr. Saffih argues that a valid divorce, which settled financial issues, had previously been issued by a court in Algeria. However, at an earlier point in the Ontario proceeding Labrosse J. ordered that the Ontario court would not recognize the Algerian divorce and was not bound by the collateral relief it imposed. There was no appeal from Labrosse J.’s order and Williams J. was required to apply it.

[7] Mr. Saffih also contests the factual findings of Williams J., but findings of fact are subject to significant deference on appeal. Moreover, the financial orders Williams J. made were formally uncontested as Mr. Saffih’s pleadings were struck due to his failure to comply with support and disclosure orders. [1] The parenting orders were the logical result of Ms. Sbih having had sole care of the children from 2020 to the time of the hearing, a period during which Mr. Saffih has not resided in Canada. Although Mr. Saffih takes particular objection to the references by Williams J. to criminal charges against him, there was ample basis for the parenting orders even disregarding those references. As Williams J. noted, Mr. Saffih did not request any parenting orders.

[8] The motion judge was entitled to conclude that the appeal lacked merit and that there would be prejudice resulting from further delay. These findings supported her view that the justice of the case did not require an extension. Without an extension, the request for a stay was moot.

[9] Accordingly, the motion to set aside the motion judge’s order is dismissed.

[10] If the parties are unable to agree on costs of this motion, they may make written submissions, limited to two pages each. The submissions of Ms. Sbih shall be due within ten days after release of these reasons; those of Mr. Saffih will be due ten days following the delivery of those of Ms. Sbih.

“P. Lauwers J.A.” “B. Zarnett J.A.” “R. Pomerance J.A.”

Footnotes

[1] He did attend the hearing before Williams J. and was permitted to make submissions.