Civil Practice and Procedure - Judgments and Orders – Final or interlocutory
Respondent brought action against appellants alleging conspiracy and fraud, and obtained ex parte initial order granting Mareva injunction, certificates of pending litigation and Norwich orders. On return date, appellants did not file affidavit evidence and did not oppose continuation of initial order, and order was continued. Appellants sought to set aside aspects of initial order and continuation order, and respondent successfully brought motion to quash set aside motion. Appellants filed notice of appeal seeking leave to appeal quash order. Respondent brought motion to quash appeal. Motion granted. Quash order was not final order as it did not finally determine real matter in dispute, that is, whether appellants committed fraud. Initial order, continuation order and quash order were all interlocutory decisions, which specifically related to Mareva injunction, certificates of pending litigation and Norwich orders. Characterization of order depended on its legal nature, not its practical effect. Although practical effect of quashing motion to set aside interlocutory injunction may effectively end some part of litigation, legal nature of such order remained interlocutory for purposes of appeal. Interlocutory orders of single judge of Superior Court of Justice must be appealed to Divisional Court pursuant to s. 19(1)(b) of Courts of Justice Act.
Amphenol Canada Corp. v. Sundaram (2019), 2019 CarswellOnt 19372, 2019 ONCA 932, K. van Rensburg J.A., DAvid M. Paciocco J.A., and J.A. Thorburn J.A. (Ont. C.A.).
Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca
