Court File and Parties

CITATION: Wang v. Li, 2023 ONSC 1051

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NOS.: 488/22

DATE: 20230213

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: FENG WANG v. MIN LI

BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.

HEARD: In Chambers, In Writing

Endorsement[^1]

[1] On August 31, 2022, I directed the Registrar to issue a notice pursuant to R.2.1 that the court was considering dismissing this motion for leave to appeal from the order of Kraft J. (2022 ONSC 4680) because of the following concerns:

The Registrar is directed to issue a notice pursuant to R.2.1 that the court is considering dismissing the appeal proceedings as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process on the following basis:

The order of M. Kraft J. as set out in subparagraphs 55(a), (b) and (c) of her reasons dismisses a motion for findings of contempt against the respondent and her counsel. These aspects of the order of Kraft J. appear to be final orders, an appeal from which is in the jurisdiction of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The order of M. Kraft J. as set out in subparagraphs 55(d) to (k) of her reasons, grants various temporary orders in relation to this proceeding. An appeal from these aspects of the order of Kraft J. may be brought to Divisional Court, with leave.

The Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal is focused almost exclusively on seeking leave to appeal subparagraphs 55(a), (b) and (c) of the order of Kraft J. As such it is not within the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court and is therefore bound to fail in this court.

To the extent that any grounds are advanced for leave to appeal subparagraphs 55(d) to (k) of the order of Kraft J., the Notice of Appeal fails to clearly state which terms are being challenged on the motion for leave to appeal, and the basis on which this court ought to grant leave to appeal in respect to those issues. The respondent and the court are entitled to a clear Notice of Motion identifying arguable issues for a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The responding party is directed not to respond to the moving party's response to the R.2.1 notice unless this court subsequently directs otherwise.

[2] The moving party responded to the R.2.1 notice, accepting that dismissal of the contempt allegations was a final order. This court then issued the following endorsement on September 12, 2022, dismissing the motion for leave to appeal pursuant to R.2.1:

The motion for leave to appeal is dismissed pursuant to R.2.1 as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process for the following reasons.

As previously explained by this court in its endorsement directing the R.2.1 notice, the focus of the moving party's motion for leave to appeal is the dismissal of the contempt allegations below. This aspect of the decision below is a final order, and jurisdiction over the appeal lies in the Court of Appeal. In his response to the R.2.1 notice, the moving party accepts this characterization of the appeal and does not provide a description of any interlocutory issues he wishes to appeal in this court.

I decline to transfer this matter to the Court of Appeal, because it appears to lack merit. Use of the contempt power is discretionary, to be used sparingly, with a view to encouraging current and future compliance with court orders. The decision below is based upon factual findings and the application of judgment to the circumstances of the case. The moving party has not identified any legal error on the face of the decision below, or any basis upon which an appellate court would interfere with the exercise of discretion.

These findings do not preclude the moving party from seeking to initiate appeal proceedings in the Court of Appeal which, at this stage, would likely require him to move for an extension of time in which to bring an appeal.

___________________________ D.L. Corbett J.

Decision Released by Email: September 12, 2022

Formal Endorsement Released: February 11, 2023

[^1]: This decision was released to the parties by email on September 12, 2022.