|
Appeals - Interlocutory Orders. Jendrika v. Intact Insurance Company
In Jendrika v. Intact Insurance Company (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court dismissed a LAT SABS appeal, here from a reconsideration denial, that from an earlier denial of a time extension to file a reconsideration, that from an IRB and benefits denial.
Here the court considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, on the argument that the reconsiderations and the time extension would have been, if granted, interlocutory orders:[16] The Respondent argues that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an interlocutory order such as a reconsideration decision. ....
....
Issue #1- Jurisdiction
[19] .... this Court does not have the jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an interlocutory decision of the LAT. In this case, I am of the view that both the time extension and reconsideration decisions are interlocutory decisions and not final ones. These two decisions do not resolve the merits of the case on a final basis. Therefore, they are not the proper basis for an appeal to this Court.
[20] The starting point for the analysis of this issue is section 11(6) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act 1999, S.O. 1999, c. 12, Sch.G, (“LATA”) which states:(6) An appeal from a decision of the Tribunal relating to a matter under the Insurance Act may be made on a question of law only. 2014, c. 9, Sched. 5, s. 5 (3). [21] This Court has repeatedly found that this section does not provide for appeals of interlocutory orders. Penney v. Co-operators General Insurance Company 2022 ONSC 3874 at paras. 8-17, Grewal v. Peel Mutual Insurance Co., 2022 ONSC 4082 and Rao v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company 2024 ONSC 39.
[22] In Rao, the Court stated (at paras. 24-25):[24] There is also the decision of this Court in Grewal v. Peel Mutual Insurance Company, 2022 ONSC 4082. In Grewal, an appeal was quashed because the LAT decision at issue was not final. The LAT decision denied a request to add a punitive damages claim to a SABS application at an early stage of the LAT process. A reconsideration of that LAT decision had already been denied. Although the facts in Grewal are different, it supports the conclusion that LAT decisions denying a reconsideration do not automatically give rise to a right of appeal to this Court. The LAT Decision denying reconsideration of the denial of an extension of time was interlocutory and did not give rise to a right of appeal to this Court. I do not have to decide whether a reconsideration decision can ever be final – that case is not before me.
[25] I conclude that only the Merits Decision gives rise to a right of appeal in this case. [23] Rao leaves open the possibility that, in some circumstances, a reconsideration decision might be a final decision. This is not that case. In this case, the reconsideration decision is not of the merits of the case. It is a reconsideration of the decision denying an extension of time to file a reconsideration decision. That is clearly an interlocutory issue. Similarly, the lime limits decision is interlocutory.
[24] Since neither the extension decision nor the reconsideration of that decision are final decisions, I conclude that this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider them. I would dismiss the Appellant’s appeal of both of those decisions. The remaining two issues shall be considered in reference to the decision on the merits only. . Khani v. Araghi
In Khani v. Araghi (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a family law appeal from both a summary judgment and a trial ruling. Here the issue arose as to whether the appeal of the summary judgment motion and the trial ruling could be combined, or whether they had to be advanced separately - in which case the motion appeal was out of time (which it was):(1) Appeal from the motion judge’s decision
[33] Dr. Araghi argues that the motion judge erred in finding that the separation agreement was valid. Specifically, she argues that the motion judge erred in limiting her analysis to the issue of whether Dr. Araghi had signed the agreement rather than considering whether the agreement was valid given the evidence that some of its terms were unenforceable. Dr. Araghi further argues that the motion judge erred in limiting the evidence that could be called at trial to the issue of whether the escrow condition was met or waived.
[34] Mr. Khani submits that Dr. Araghi cannot appeal the motion judge’s order because she did not initiate her appeal within the time prescribed for doing so. I agree.
[35] Dr. Araghi argues that she is entitled to challenge the motion judge’s order because it was in the nature of a mid-trial ruling rather than a final order. I disagree. In my view, the motion judge’s order cannot be characterized as a mid-trial ruling. As this court explained in Harris v. Leikin Group Inc., 2014 ONCA 479, 120 O.R. (3d) 508, at para. 46, by contemplating that a judge hearing a motion for summary judgment can order the trial of an issue and make directions for the trial, r. 20.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 (the civil equivalent of r. 16(9) of the Family Law Rules) “recognizes the existence of two discrete phases of the proceeding: a pre-trial phase when directions for trial are made and then the trial itself.” Accordingly, the motion judge’s order, which provided pre-trial directions, does not fall “within the trial proper so as to permit a party to sit on a right of appeal to be used if the party is unsuccessful at trial.” Since Dr. Araghi failed to commence her appeal from the motion judge’s order within the time prescribed in the Rules of Civil Procedure, she is now precluded from challenging that decision. . Promotion in Motion, Inc. v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC [interlocutory evidence appeals]
In Promotion in Motion, Inc. v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC (Fed CA, 2024) the Federal Court of Appeal distinguishes the appealability of interlocutory evidence orders made pre-trial, from those made during a trial - the latter of which are not typically appealable:[11] As a general rule, this Court does not entertain an appeal from an evidentiary ruling made during a trial, regardless of whether the motion is formal or informal, rendered orally or in writing (Munchkin, Inc. v. Angelcare Canada Inc., 2021 FCA 169, Buffalo v. The Queen, 2001 FCA 282, at paras. 2-3 [Buffalo]). While paragraph 27(1)(c) of the Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985 c F-7 creates a right of appeal from interlocutory orders of the Federal Court, different rules apply where the ruling arises in the course of a trial. In these circumstances, appeals are available only under exceptional circumstances, as required by the interests of justice (Sawridge Band v. Canada, 2006 FCA 228, at paras. 26-28, Sopinka, at 424). This could arise where the admissibility of the evidence would cause significant prejudice to the parties or where a final disposition on the evidentiary question may have a dramatic bearing on the length of the trial. The conjunction of these two factors – prejudice and the due administration of justice will rarely occur. That is why, for example, there are statutory guarantees of rights of appeal of evidentiary rulings in some cases. Section 37.1 of the Canada Evidence Act, RSC 1985 c C-5 , for example, provides an immediate right of appeal to the appellate court in matters involving informer privilege (Basis v. the Queen, 2009 SCC 52, at para. 19).
[12] Consistent with this framework, pending appeals of interlocutory orders should be fully disposed of before trial (Sopinka, at paras. 77-78), and once commenced, the trial should not be interrupted by interlocutory appeals (Buffalo, at para. 3). Once a final judgment is issued, a party disagreeing with the judge’s treatment of the evidence in the reasons may bring their challenge by argument in their memorandum in response to an appeal (Froom v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2004 FCA 352, at para. 11). . Borschel v. Borschel
In Borschel v. Borschel (Div Ct, 2021) the Divisional Court described the typical nature of interlocutory orders:[9] In most circumstances, an interlocutory ruling merges in the final disposition of the case. The interlocutory ruling is not binding on the trial judge. The ruling either addresses issues necessary to prepare the case for trial (such as orders for disclosure) or seeks to secure a reasonable state of affairs pending final disposition of the case (such as an interlocutory injunction or, in this case, an order for temporary support).
|
