Court File and Parties

CITATION: Lan v. Liao, 2026 ONSC 1213

OSHAWA DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NOS.: DC-25-1728, DC-25-1729 and DC-25-1734

DATE: 2026-02-27

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Xu Lan, Applicant

AND:

Zhiwei Liao, Man Yee Shek, Samuel Property Investment (Canada) Inc., Chi Wo (“Brian”) Yip, 2780837 Ontario Inc., Diquan Liao and Xueqing Zhang (deceased), Respondents

BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice R.E. Charney

COUNSEL: Alexandra Abramian and Brigitta Tseitlin, Counsel for the Applicant

Zhiwei Liao, Self-Represented

Man Yee Shek, Self-Represented and as Director of Samuel Property Investment Canada Inc.

Chi Wo (“Brian”) Yip, Self-Represented

2780837 Ontario Inc., Unrepresented

Diquan Liao and Xueqing Zhang (deceased), Unrepresented

HEARD: In Writing

Endorsement

Procedural History

[1] On October 16, 2025, Justice Jarvis released his Reasons for Decision in this case, which was heard in the Superior Court of Justice, Family Court: X.L. v. Z.L. et al, 2025 ONSC 5880.

[2] The Order granted the Applicant sole decision making responsibility and primary residence of the Applicant’s and the Respondent Zhiwei Liao’s children. The Respondent husband was ordered to pay child support in the sum of $1,764 per month, and to pay the Applicant an equalization payment of $452,000.

[3] The Order also provided that “the conveyance of the property municipally known as 29 Linacre Drive, Richmond Hill, Ontario to the Respondent Man Yee Shek was a fraudulent conveyance”.

[4] Finally, the following Orders were also made:

a. Man Yee Shek’s claim against Diquan Liao and his late wife Xueqing Zhang is dismissed.

b. The Applicant’s fraudulent conveyance claim against the Respondent Chi Wo Yip is dismissed.

c. The Applicant shall pay to the Respondent Chi Wo Yip the sum of $6,251.87 for hydro expenses.

d. All other claims made by the Respondent Chi Wo Yip against the Applicant were dismissed.

e. No Order was made with respect to any claim that the Respondent Chi Wo Yip may have against Man Yee Shek.

f. All other claims in these proceedings were dismissed.

[5] Although the Order is dated October 16, 2025, due to a dispute among the parties, it was not issued by the Registrar’s office until December 2, 2025 and it was released to the parties on December 8, 2025.

[6] The Order states that it is made pursuant to the Divorce Act and the Family Law Act.

[7] Following the release of the Order, the Divisional Court received three Notices of Appeal:

[8] The first was from the husband, Zhiwei Liao, appealing from the following “portions” of Justice Jarvis’s Order (Court File # DC-25-1728):

• The declaration of fraudulent conveyance of 29 Linacre Drive

• The net family property equalization of $452,000

• The allocation of post-valuation date adjustments and carrying costs

• The income determination of child support and special expenses

• The order granting the Applicant sole decision making responsibility with respect to the child

[9] Zhiwei Liao is not appealing any portion of the Order that relates exclusively to the other parties.

[10] The second Notice of Appeal was from Man Yee Shek and Samuel Property Investment Canada Inc. (Court File #DC-25-1729) appealing from the following portions of the Order:

• The declaration of fraudulent conveyance of 29 Linacre Drive

• Any adverse credibility findings against Man Yee Shek

• Any costs order against the named appellants

[11] In my direction to each of the appellants following the filing of their respective Notices of Appeal, I advised as follows:

The parties are to advise whether there is any dispute regarding the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court to hear this appeal. The Court notes that the final Order of Jarvis J. indicates that it is made pursuant to the Divorce Act (Canada) and the Family Law Act. The parties are referred to s. 19(1)(a.1) of the Courts of Justice Act, which provides that an appeal lies to the Divisional Court from a final order of a judge of the Family Court made only under a provision of an Act or Regulation of Ontario.

[12] After receiving my direction, counsel for Respondent in the Appeal (the Applicant wife) advised the court that since the equalization order was for $452,000, the appeal lies to the Court of Appeal. She also took the position that since the Endorsement was released on October 16, 2025, the Notice of Appeal was out of time and a motion for an extension of time was required.

[13] The Self-represented Appellant advised that his position was that the appeal was within the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court because it was a “mixed family law appeal” that also dealt with “property matters”.

[14] Based on that dispute, I issued the following direction on December 24, 2025:

Following my direction dated December 22, 2025, counsel for the Respondent has advised that it is the Respondent’s position that the appeal lies to the Court of Appeal rather than the Divisional Court, and that the Appeal is out of time because the Order under appeal is dated October 16, 2025, and the automatic right of appeal expired on November 14, 2025.

The Appellant takes the position that the appeal is within the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court and, in the alternative, requests the Court to transfer the appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Appellant further asserts that although the Decision is dated October 16, 2025, it was not released by the Court until December 8, 2025, and therefore the appeal is not out of time.

Both issues should be addressed as soon as possible.

To that end, the Respondent shall bring a motion in writing to my attention to dismiss the appeal on the basis of the grounds set out above. The motion material shall be served and filed by January 23, 2026. The Respondent’s factum shall be limited to 10 pages.

The Appellant shall serve and file his responding material by February 13, 2026. His factum will also be limited to 10 pages.

Following the receipt of each party’s submissions, I will issue a decision. As indicated, this motion shall proceed as a motion in writing without oral submissions.

[15] On December 29, 2025, the third Notice of Appeal was served by Chi Wo Yip and 2780837 Ontario Inc. (DC-25-1734) appealing “only those portions of the Reasons for Decision and the Final Order that relate to or affect Chi Wo Yip and/or 2780837 Ontario Inc.” including findings arising from the fraudulent conveyance claim.

[16] The Respondent in the Appeal was advised that her Notice of Motion and Factum could include all three file numbers (DC-25-1728, DC-25-1729 and DC-25-1734) and the Court would address all three in a single motion.

[17] Following this direction, each of the three sets of appellants has brought a motion for an extension of time to serve their respective Notices of Appeal if the time for the appeal commenced on October 16, 2025.

[18] On January 1, 2026, the Appellant in DC-25-1728 wrote to the Court to advise that the appellants had filed Notices of Appeal with the Court of Appeal “on a protective basis” in order to preserve their appeal rights in that court. They also brought motions for an extension of time to serve and file their notices of appeal in that Court.

[19] That motion was dealt with by Madsen J.A. in the Court of Appeal. She concluded that the motions in the Court of Appeal were premature, and that any motion in the Court of Appeal should await the outcome of the motion before the Divisional Court. The motions were dismissed “without prejudice to the parties’ ability to seek an extension of time before this court should the Divisional Court decline jurisdiction”.

Analysis

[20] The Respondent in Appeal raises two issues:

a. Is the appeal out of time because the Reasons for Decision were released on October 16, 2025?

b. Is the appeal within the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court?

[21] Given my decision with respect to (b), it is not necessary to deal with the Appellants’ motion for an extension of time. That will have to be addressed by the Court of Appeal.

[22] Section 19 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 43, sets out the appellate jurisdiction of the Divisional Court. It provides:

19 (1) An appeal lies to the Divisional Court from,

(a) a final order of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice, as described in subsections (1.1) and (1.2);

(a.1) a final order of a judge of the Family Court made only under a provision of an Act or regulation of Ontario;

(b) an interlocutory order of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice, with leave as provided in the rules of court;

(c) a final order of a master, case management master or associate judge.

[23] The decision of Jarvis J. was a final order. Subsection 19 (1.2), which applies to notices of appeal filed on or after October 1, 2007, limits the appellate jurisdiction of the Divisional Court to single payments of not more than $50,000. In this case, the equalization payment ordered is $452,000.

[24] Subsection 19(a.1) applies to “a final order of a judge of the Family Court made only under a provision of an Act or regulation of Ontario”. Justice Jarvis’ order states that it is made under both the Divorce Act and the Family Law Act. The appeal of the Respondent husband relates to decisions made pursuant to both of these Acts.

[25] Since the appeal is not within the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court, it is within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal: Courts of Justice Act, s. 6(1)(b).

[26] Pursuant to s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act, this Court has the discretion to transfer this appeal to the Court of Appeal. In exercising its discretion under this section, the Court considers the merits of the appeal, the prejudice to the respondent from further delay and whether the appellant moved expeditiously once it was known that jurisdiction was being disputed: Schwilgin v. Szivy, 2015 ONSC 4292, at para. 5.

[27] Since the appellants have already filed Notices of Appeal with the Court of Appeal “on a protective basis” and brought motions for an extension of time in that Court, there is no purpose to my exercising my discretion to transfer the appeal to the Court of Appeal.

[28] The appeals to the Divisional Court are dismissed, without prejudice to the Appellants proceeding in the Court of Appeal.

Justice R.E. Charney

Date: February 27, 2026