The record discloses that Ford has the financial ability to pay the attorney's fees and still continue with the litigation. Here, the sanction award can be remedied by appeal and the party's right to seek relief from an appellate court without penalty is not lost forever. Accordingly, Ford has an adequate remedy on appeal. Our requirement that mandamus will not issue when there is an adequate remedy by appeal is well settled. The delay in having questions decided through the appellate process does not justify an appellate court's intervention through the extraordinary writ of mandamus.
Interference is justified only when parties stand to lose their substantial rights.
Here, the record shows that Ford is not in jeopardy of losing substantial rights. Unfortunately, and although well settled, the Court once again honors the lack of adequate appellate remedy requirement more in its breach than in its observance. Even more unfortunate is the fact that despite precedent like Braden and Walker , the Court again sets a course down a road of no return. In Canadian Helicopters , the Court reaffirmed that the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue mandamus to supervise or correct a trial court's incidental rulings where there is an adequate remedy by appeal. In Canadian Helicopters , the Court held, in the context of a special appearance, that Canadian Helicopters had an adequate remedy by appeal and accordingly denied Canadian Helicopters mandamus relief.