Sakab Saudi Holding Company v. Al Jabri, 2022 ONSC 150

CITATION: Sakab Saudi Holding Company v. Al Jabri, 2022 ONSC 150

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NOs.: 933/21 and 936/21

DATE: 20220121

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Sakab Saudi Holding Company et al, Plaintiffs

AND:

saad khalid s al jabri and MOHAMMED SAAD KH AL JABRI, Defendants

BEFORE: LEDERER, MATHESON and COPELAND JJ.

COUNSEL: Munaf Mohamed, Amanda C. McLachlan and Jonathan G. Bell for the Plaintiffs

John J. Adair, Jordan Katz, Chris Grisdale, Victoria Wicks, Patrick Flaherty, Stuart Svonkin, Sean Pierce, Harry Underwood, Andrew Max and Emily Young, for the Defendants

HEARD: In writing.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] There are two motions for leave to appeal from the orders of Cavanagh J. dated November 19, 2021, one brought by Dr. Saad Aljabri and the other by the plaintiffs.

[2] Leave to appeal is granted on these issues:

(1) Did the Motions Judge err in holding that evidence given by the alleged contemnor pursuant to the Mareva order before being given notice of the contempt motion is admissible in the contempt proceeding, despite s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

(2) Did the Motions Judge err in holding that evidence that the alleged contemnor was compelled to give pursuant to the Mareva order is admissible in the subsequent civil contempt proceeding because civil contempt proceedings are not “other proceedings” within the meaning of s. 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

(3) Did the Motions Judge err in holding that answers and documents provided in response to undertakings given by the alleged contemnor before the contempt motion was brought are inadmissible, pursuant to s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, where the responses to the undertakings are provided after the commencement of the contempt motion.

(4) Did the Motions Judge err in holding that the defendants are not required to produce certain documents and in adjourning the holding of the production motion until after the contempt motion has been heard and decided on the basis that s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms prevents the compulsory production of pre-existing documents for use on the contempt motion.

[3] For the purposes of the appeal, Dr. Saad Aljabri shall be the appellant and the plaintiffs shall be the cross-appellants.

[4] The parties shall attend at a Case Conference on January 28, 2022 at 9AM, by teleconference, for the purpose of scheduling the steps in the appeal. Prior to that date, the parties shall attempt to agree on a schedule for the exchange of the appeal materials.

[5] The costs of these leave motions are reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

Lederer J.

Matheson J.

Copeland J.

Released: January 21, 2022