Citation: El Qaoud v. Orabi, 2004 NSCA 104
Date: 20040902
Docket: CA 220670
Registry: Halifax
Between:
Bashar Kayed El Qaoud
Appellant
v.
Nashwa Orabi
Respondent
Judge: Cromwell, J.A.
Application Heard: September 2, 2004, in Halifax, Nova Scotia, In Chambers
Written Decision: September 2, 2004
Held: Application dismissed.
Counsel: Appellant in person
Lee Mitchell, for the respondent
Decision: (Orally)
[1] This is an application by Mr. El Qaoud for a stay of proceedings pending his appeal.
[2] There are ongoing proceedings in the Family Division of the Supreme Court in which Ms. Orabi seeks child and spousal support under the Maintenance and Custody Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 160 and exclusive possession and unequal division of what she says is the matrimonial home under the Matrimonial Property Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 275. In those proceedings, a preliminary issue of law arose as to whether the parties had been divorced in Jordan. That issue ultimately went before Coady, J. who, in the decision now under appeal, held that the Jordanian judgment would not be recognized in Canada for the purposes of determining the parties’ matrimonial status.
[3] Mr. El Qaoud has appealed the order of Coady, J. and now applies for a stay of proceedings, asking in effect that further proceedings in the Family Division be put on hold until the appeal is heard.
[4] Assuming without deciding that I have the authority to make such an order, I refuse to do so. Until the Family Division proceedings in relation to the support and property issues have been concluded, Mr. El Qaoud’s assets are not at risk. Any order with respect to property or support that may be made in the Family Division will be subject to an appeal and to Mr. El Qaoud’s ability to apply for a stay pending appeal at that time if so advised.
[5] Whether or not proceedings in the Family Division should go ahead in these circumstances is better left to the presiding judge in that court who, of course, has a discretion as to whether to adjourn those proceedings or not. It would not, in my opinion, be appropriate for an appellate court such as this to intervene at this stage of the proceedings.
[6] The application is, therefore, dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.
Cromwell, J.A.