Court File and Parties

Citation: Sakab Saudi Holding Company v. Saad Khalid S Al Jabri, 2025 ONSC 3591

Divisional Court File No.: 777/24 and 786/24 ML

Date: 2025-07-30

Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Divisional Court

Re: SAKAB SAUDI HOLDING COMPANY, ALPHA STAR AVIATION SERVICES COMPANY, ENMA AL ARED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, KAFA’AT BUSINESS SOLUTIONS COMPANY, SECURITY CONTROL COMPANY, ARMOUR SECURITY INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, SAUDI TECHNOLOGY & SECURITY COMPREHENSIVE CONTROL COMPANY, TECHNOLOGY CONTROL COMPANY, and NEW DAWN CONTRACTING COMPANY and SKY PRIME INVESTMENT COMPANY, Moving Parties

And: SAAD KHALID S AL JABRI, DREAMS INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY SERVICES LTD., 1147848 B.C. LTD., NEW EAST (US) INC., NEW EAST 804 805 LLC, NEW EAST BACK BAY LLC, NEW EAST DC LLC, JAALIK CONTRACTING LTD., NADYAH SULAIMAN A AL JABBARI, personally and as litigation guardian for SULAIMAN SAAD KHALID AL JABRI, KHALID SAAD KHALID AL JABRI, MOHAMMED SAAD KH AL JABRI, NAIF SAAD KH AL JABRI, HISSAH SAAD KH AL JABRI, SALEH SAAD KHALID AL JABRI, CANADIAN GROWTH INVESTMENTS LIMITED, GRYPHON SECURE INC., INFOSEC GLOBAL INC., QFIVE GLOBAL INVESTMENT INC., GOLDEN VALLEY MANAGEMENT LTD, NEW SOUTH EAST PTE LTD., TEN LEAVES MANAGEMENT LTD., 2767143 ONTARIO INC., NAGY MOUSTAFA, HSBC TRUSTEE (C.I.) LIMITED, in its capacity as Trustee of the Black Stallion Trust, HSBC PRIVATE BANKING NOMINEE 3 (JERSEY) LIMITED, in its capacity as a Nominee Shareholder of Black Stallion Investments Limited, BLACK STALLION INVESTMENTS LIMITED, NEW EAST FAMILY FOUNDATION, NEW EAST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, NEW SOUTH EAST ESTABLISHMENT, NCOM INC. and 2701644 ONTARIO INC., Responding Parties

Before: Justices King, Shore and Smith JJ.

Counsel: Munaf Mohamed KC, Jonathan G. Bell, and Douglas A. Fenton, for the Moving Parties John Adair, Counsel for the Responding Parties

Heard: In-writing

Endorsement

[1] Both parties are seeking leave to appeal the decision of Cavanagh, J. dated December 2, 2024, but on different issues. The moving parties’ motion for leave to appeal is dismissed. The responding parties’ motion for leave to appeal is granted. Costs to be determined by the panel hearing the appeal.

[2] The Court would have granted to leave to appeal on both motions except that in the context of the case before this Court, the issue on the appeal brought by the moving party is moot.

King J.

Shore J.

Smith J.

Released: July 30, 2025