Court File and Parties

CITATION: Nady v. Sadi, 2025 ONSC 3826

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-24-00000603-0000

DATE: 20250626

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: ESLAM NADY, Appellant

AND:

SALAM AL SADI, NOOR AL SADI, Respondents

BEFORE: Justice S. Nakatsuru

COUNSEL: Eslam Nady, Self-Represented Appellant

Rocco Scocco, for the Respondents

HEARD: June 26, 2025, in writing

Endorsement

[1] Eslam Nady, the Appellant/defendant, is appealing a judgment of a small claims deputy judge who found against him in a claim where the Respondents/plaintiffs sued Mr. Nady for failing to return a cat that they gave to Mr. Nady to look after.

[2] Two issues need to be decided: (1) whether Mr. Nady’s appeal should be dismissed under Rule 2.1 as frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process; and (2) a motion by Mr. Nady to extend time to perfect this appeal while the Respondents submit it should be dismissed as a result of the delay: Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, 2023 ONSC 2928 (Div. Ct).

[3] Regarding issue (1), I find that it is not plain or obvious that the appeal is frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process. The grounds raised by Mr. Nady challenges the trial as being procedurally unfair involving erroneous evidentiary rulings, material legal errors, and palpable and overriding factual errors. In addition, although he does not specifically identify what it is, he states he intends to bring a fresh evidence motion on the appeal. Finally, while the Respondents submit that this matter should be dismissed as an abuse of process, mainly on the submission that Mr. Nady has unduly delayed both trial and appeal process, there are some explanations regarding why this matter has not proceeded efficiently. Without going into any further detail, I am satisfied that this is not a clear case where the appeal should be dismissed at this preliminary stage.

[4] Regarding issue (2), I find that Mr. Nady has met the test for the extension of time to perfect his appeal. The judgment was rendered August 30, 2024, with the costs decision released on October 31, 2024. Mr. Nady served his notice of appeal on September 26, 2024. Since then, his appeal has been before the Divisional Court. Although he relatively promptly ordered transcripts for this multi-day trial on October 23, 2024, unfortunately delay occurred. Some of this was not Mr. Nady’s fault as it appears multiple court transcriptionist had to be substituted. However, Mr. Nady’s purported financial inability to pay for the transcripts in a timely fashion is his responsibility. I am sympathetic to the Respondents who are awaiting to enforce their judgment but they are not suffering any significant prejudice as a result of the delay. Therefore, Mr. Nady should receive some indulgence in perfecting his appeal. To do so is reasonable and in the interests of justice: Caledon (Town) v. Darzi Holdings Ltd., 2022 ONCA 455.

[5] However, an extension of one year to June 26, 2026, to perfect his appeal based on Mr. Nady’s position that he needs that lengthy period to pay for his transcripts by installments, is patently unreasonable. Many months has already passed since the transcripts have been ordered. Although Mr. Nady provided an affidavit setting out is subjective belief in his inability to afford to pay for the transcripts, insufficient detail about his financial and personal circumstances has been revealed for me to confirm that this is the case. In addition, while I fully appreciate the fact that he is self-represented and the cost of the transcripts is not minimal, I conclude that such an extended timeframe is not required for this appellant to have reasonable access to civil justice. Some accommodation can be given to him and yet ensure the expeditious conduct of this appeal.

[6] Thus, the following schedule shall be adhered to:

• The Appellant’s materials (including all transcripts that are being relied upon and any motion to introduce fresh evidence with factum and motion record which will be heard at the same date as the appeal hearing) shall be served and filed by: October 31, 2025.

• The Respondents’ materials by: December 1, 2025.

[7] Absent some exceptional circumstances, the parties are expected to abide by this schedule and modifications will not be permitted. If it is not, Mr. Nady should be forewarned that a potential consequence may be the dismissal of his appeal.

[8] Lastly, any request for security for costs is not properly before me and will not be entertained.

[9] Costs of these motions will be reserved for the panel.

Justice S. Nakatsuru

Released: June 26, 2025