Rai v. Rai

Rai v. Rai

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to use the procedural mechanisms in the Rules of Civil Procedure to fill gaps in the evidentiary record or to compel testimony; the motion judge correctly concluded the documentary record supported the respondent and that credibility and factual findings could be made on summary judgment, and the erroneous finding about a prior family disclosure motion was not overriding.

Citation
2025 ONCA 879
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Hardat Rai; Defendant/respondent: Kemkumarie Rai
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Summary Judgment / Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Disclosure and Production, Cross Examination Refusals, Standard of Review/deference, Jurisdictional Transfer Between Court Streams
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Family Law Summary Judgment Disclosure and Production Cross Examination Refusals Standard of Review/deference Jurisdictional Transfer Between Court Streams

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hardat Rai

Plaintiff/appellant

Kemkumarie Rai

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Summary Judgment / Appeal (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was denied the ability to marshal a factual record by virtue of disclosure issues and the motion judge's finding about a disclosure motion
  2. 2 Whether the matter was suitable for summary judgment given alleged credibility issues and the need for viva voce evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to use the procedural mechanisms in the Rules of Civil Procedure to fill gaps in the evidentiary record or to compel testimony; the motion judge correctly concluded the documentary record supported the respondent and that credibility and factual findings could be made on summary judgment, and the erroneous finding about a prior family disclosure motion was not overriding.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Partial indemnity costs to respondent of $14,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes