Court File and Parties

CITATION: Nassrallah v. McGarry, 2025 ONSC 5432

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 559/25

DATE: 20250924

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: DANIEL NASSRALLAH and GEORGES NASSRALLAH, Moving Parties

AND:

SHEETZA MCGARRY, Responding Party

BEFORE: Justice S. Nakatsuru

COUNSEL: Miriam Vale Peters, for the Moving Parties

Kevin Caron and Sean Grassip, for the Responding Party

HEARD: September 24, 2025, in writing

Endorsement

[1] Daniel and Georges Nassrallah, the moving parties, seek an order to extend the period of time to serve and file a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Justice Smith dated June 4, 2025. The moving parties are lawyers who drafted a will that has become the subject of a lawsuit. The responding party opposes the extension.

[2] The test for an extension of time is well established. See the cases of Chandra v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., 2016 ONCA 448 at para. 13; Daly v. TRP Realty Inc., 2022 ONSC 4502 (Div. Ct.) at para. 2; Rizzi v. Mavros, 2007 ONCA 350 at para. 16. This test asks four questions:

(1) Did the appellant form an intention to appeal within the appeal period?

(2) Is there a good explanation for the delay in bringing appeal proceedings?

(3) Would there be prejudice to the respondent in granting the extension?

(4) Does the justice of the case favour granting the extension?

[3] While the moving parties argue that no extension of time is required due to the “partial” nature of the Justice Smith’s decision, I will decide this under the established test.

[4] The motion for leave to appeal was served July 3, 2025. This motion for an extension of time was served July 8, 2025.

[5] I am satisfied that the justice of the case requires that an extension be granted. I find that the moving parties formed the intention to seek leave to appeal within the relevant period. The length of the delay here is a modest 13-day delay. Due to the moving parties’ uncertainty of the scope of Justice Smith’s order and their own personal medical circumstances, they were unable to formulate joint instructions until late June. I find this understandable. I see little prejudice to the responding party beyond the modest delay for the motion to be heard. It is anticipated that the motion for leave to appeal will be heard sometime in the end of October. Finally, there is sufficient merit to the motion for leave such that this factor is not an insurmountable obstacle to the granting of the extension of time.

[6] Costs of this motion will be reserved to the panel hearing the motion for leave.

Justice S. Nakatsuru

Released: September 24, 2025