Rabbani v. Furney
- Citation
- 2026 ONCA 271
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 14 April 2026
- Posture
- Civil / Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 14 April 2026
- Posture
- Civil / Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Orders requiring posting of security for costs are interlocutory by legal nature and not subject to appeal to this Court of Appeal; therefore this court has no jurisdiction and the appeal must be quashed.
Court disposition
Appeal quashed for want of jurisdiction
Orders
- Appeal quashed for want of jurisdiction
- Request for adjournment denied as moot
- Costs to the respondent fixed at $1,695.00 inclusive
02
Material facts
Parties
Mohammad Ali Rabbani
Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim (respondent) Counsel: Louis Vittas and David TepelenasAlex Aidan Fitzgerald Furney
Defendants/plaintiffs by Counterclaim (appellants) Counsel: acting in personMaryam Furney
Defendants/plaintiffs by Counterclaim (appellants) Counsel: acting in personHassan Hashami
Defendants/plaintiffs by Counterclaim (appellants)Amounts and remedies
- Security for Costs Ordered: CAD 66,670
- Costs Awarded to Respondent: CAD 1,695
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil / Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order requiring posting of security for costs
- 02
Whether an order requiring security for costs can be treated as final in substance because of its practical effect
- 03
Whether filing materials or lack of objection by respondent can confer appellate jurisdiction
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellants argued they cannot afford to post the $66,670 security ordered, so the order will end the litigation and is "final in substance"; there are no ongoing proceedings below; the Court accepted and filed their materials and the respondent never objected; they will be prejudiced if the appeal is not heard in this court.
- Respondent
- The respondent relied on binding authority that orders for security for costs are interlocutory by legal nature and do not determine the substantive rights in dispute; jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, filing, or attornment; therefore the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Drywall Acoustic Lathing Insulation Local 675 Pension Fund v. SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., 2020 ONCA 375
Orders requiring security for costs are interlocutory because they do not determine the substantive matter in dispute.
- 02
Paulpillai Estate v. Yusuf, 2020 ONCA 655
Characterization of an order depends on its legal nature, not its practical effect.
- 03
J.N. v. Durham Regional Police Service, 2012 ONCA 428
Jurisdiction is fundamental and cannot be conferred by consent, attornment, filing, or lack of objection.
- 04
Nazarinia Holdings Inc. v. 2049080 Ontario Inc., 2012 ONCA 652; Leslie v. Encanto Potash Trading Corporation, 2021 ONCA 464; Kapital Produce Limited v. Farm Credit Canada, 2026 ONCA 114
Appeals from orders requiring security for costs are interlocutory and not within Court of Appeal jurisdiction under ordinary practice.
- 05
Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s.19(1)(b)
Statutory provision may place certain appeals in Divisional Court where order is interlocutory.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Orders requiring posting of security for costs are interlocutory by legal nature and not subject to appeal to this Court of Appeal; therefore this court has no jurisdiction and the appeal must be quashed.
Obiter and limits
- The practical effect of an order does not change its legal characterization.
- Acceptance of filings and lack of immediate objection do not cure a jurisdictional defect.
- The appellants' request for an adjournment is moot once jurisdiction is found lacking.
Court disposition
Appeal quashed for want of jurisdiction
- Appeal quashed for want of jurisdiction
- Request for adjournment denied as moot
- Costs to the respondent fixed at $1,695.00 inclusive
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal for Ontario · 14 April 2026
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Judgment· 14 April 2026
Rabbani v. Furney Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2026-04-14 Neutral citation 2026 ONCA 271 Docket numbers COA-25-CV-1308 Judges Paciocco, David M.; Copeland, Jill M.; Dawe, Jonathan Subject Civil Decision Content
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Rabbani v. Furney, 2026 ONCA 271 DATE: 20260414 DOCKET: COA-25-CV-1308 Paciocco, Copeland and Dawe JJ.A.
BETWEEN Mohammad Ali Rabbani Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim (Respondent) and Alex Aidan Fitzgerald Furney also known as Alex Furney* and Maryam Furney* and Hassan Hashami Defendants/Plaintiffs by Counterclaim (Appellants*) Alex Furney and Maryam Furney, acting in person Louis Vittas and David Tepelenas, for the respondent Heard and rendered orally: April 10, 2026 On appeal from the Order of Justice Andrew J. Spurgeon of the Superior Court of Justice, dated August 18, 2025.
REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellants, Alex and Maryam Furney (“the Furneys”), are appealing an order that they post $66,670 as security for costs pending the trial of their counterclaim against the respondent, Mohammad Rabbani.[1] [2] On December 16, 2025, the court wrote to the parties to advise that the appeal may fall within the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court pursuant to s. 19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 43, because the order under appeal may be interlocutory rather than final. On March 26, 2026, the court advised the parties that the panel would hear argument on this jurisdictional issue before considering the Furneys’ request that the appeal be adjourned. [3] We are satisfied that we have no jurisdiction to hear this appeal. This court has consistently held that orders requiring the posting of security for costs are interlocutory, not final: see e.g., Nazarinia Holdings Inc. v. 2049080 Ontario Inc., 2012 ONCA 652, at para. 2; Leslie v. Encanto Potash Trading Corporation, 2021 ONCA 464, at para. 6; Kapital Produce Limited v. Farm Credit Canada, 2026 ONCA 114, at para. 1. [4] The Furneys argue that because they cannot afford to post the amount specified in the order under appeal, the order will bring the litigation to an end, making it “final in substance”. They emphasize that there are no ongoing proceedings in this matter in the court below. However, “the characterization of [an] order depends upon its legal nature, not its practical effect”: Paulpillai Estate v. Yusuf, 2020 ONCA 655, at para.
16. Orders requiring a litigant to post security for costs are interlocutory, not final, because they do not “determine the real matter in dispute between the parties – the very subject matter of the litigation – or any substantive right”: Drywall Acoustic Lathing Insulation Local 675 Pension Fund v. SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., 2020 ONCA 375, at para. 16. [5] The Furneys also argue that this court has already “accepted jurisdiction” by receiving and filing their materials; that the respondent “never objected to this Court’s jurisdiction”, and never brought a motion to quash their appeal; and that they will be prejudiced if their appeal is not heard in this court. [6] None of these considerations make a difference. As this court observed in J.N. v. Durham Regional Police Service, 2012 ONCA 428, 294 O.A.C. 56, at para. 25: [J]urisdiction is fundamental to a court or tribunal’s authority to deal with a matter. Jurisdiction is not optional, cannot be conferred by consent, cured by attornment, or assumed voluntarily just because there is an interesting and significant issue to be considered: [7] In short, our finding that this court has no jurisdiction to hear appeals from orders of this nature means that the Furney’s appeal cannot proceed in this court. [8] The appeal is accordingly quashed for want of jurisdiction. This makes the Furneys’ request for an adjournment moot. [9] Costs to the respondent are fixed at $1,695.00, all inclusive. “David M. Paciocco J.A.” “J. Copeland J.A.” “J. Dawe J.A.” [1] Mr. Rabbani was previously granted summary judgment in his claim against the Furneys: Rabbani v. Furney at al., 2023 ONSC 7059, aff’d 2024 ONCA 943.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.