Docket: CACV2401 Dr. Raymond Abouabdallah (Applicant) Appellant - v. -, 2013 SKCA 120

THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2013 SKCA 120 Date: 2013-11-13 Between: Docket: CACV2401 Dr. Raymond Abouabdallah (Applicant) Appellant - and - Professional Conduct Committee of the College of Dental Surgeons of Saskatchewan (Defendant) Respondent Coram: Lane, Caldwell and Herauf JJ.A. Counsel: Raymond Abouabdallah, on his own behalf Reynold A. Robertson, Q.C., for the respondent Appeal: From: 2013 SKQB 102 Heard: November 13, 2013 Disposition: Leave Denied (Orally)

Written Reasons: November 13, 2013 By: The Honourable Mr. Justice Caldwell In Concurrence: The Honourable Mr. Justice Lane The Honourable Mr. Justice Herauf Caldwell J.A. [ 1 ] Dr. Raymond Abouabdallah seeks to appeal from the decision of the chambers judge (indexed as: 2013 SKQB 102 ), which ordered Dr. Abouabdallah to post $25,000 as security for costs pursuant to Rule 537(1) of The Queen’s Bench Rules .

The order was made in respect of his pending appeal to the Court of Queen’s Bench from a decision of the discipline committee of the respondent College. [ 2 ] Under s. 8(1) of The Court of Appeal Act, 2000 , S.S. 2000, c. C-42.1, except in certain circumstances, which are not present in this case, no appeal lies from an interlocutory decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench unless leave to appeal is granted by a judge of this Court or the Court itself.

This is a requirement well-known to the parties (see: 2010 SKCA 129 ). [ 3 ] We reviewed the materials filed by the parties and received, with the assistance of an interpreter, oral submissions from Dr. Abouabdallah on the question of whether the decision from which he now seeks to appeal is final or interlocutory. In the result, we are of the unanimous opinion the chambers judge’s decision that Dr. Abouabdallah should post security for costs is interlocutory. We say this chiefly because the chambers judge made his decision during the course of Dr.

Abouabdallah’s appeal before the Court of Queen’s Bench but the decision is not a final decision on any matter put in issue in that appeal. [ 4 ] As Dr. Abouabdallah had not sought leave to appeal from the chambers decision, we considered, as a preliminary matter, whether the Court ought to grant leave to appeal, nunc pro tunc . However, based on our review of the circumstances and the well- established considerations for the granting of leave to appeal set forth in Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Saskatchewan 2002 SKCA 119 , 227 Sask.

R. 121, we unanimously concluded this matter does not warrant the granting of leave and we are not, therefore, persuaded we should exercise our discretion to grant leave nunc pro tunc . [ 5 ] Accordingly, we hereby deny the application for leave to appeal and the proposed appeal therefore falls. In these circumstances, we make no order as to costs.