|
Appeals - Interlocutory Appeals from Associate Judges (Masters). Auciello v. La
In Auciello v. La (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court walks through an involved appeal route analysis:Jurisdiction
[66] The appeal is from an order refusing leave to amend a pleading. It is also from the content of case management orders. It is partly in reference to a final order and partly in reference to interlocutory orders.
[67] An appeal from an interlocutory order of an associate judge lies to a judge of the Superior Court of Justice in accordance with s. 17 (a) of the Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990 c C.43. By contrast, an appeal from a final order of an associate judge lies to the Divisional Court in accordance with s. 19 (1)(c) of the Courts of Justice Act.
[68] Pursuant to s. 21 (2)(a) of the statute, the appeal from the final order of the associate judge in this court may be heard by a single judge. Subsection 19 (2) of the statute allows for appeals that lie both to the Superior Court and to the Divisional Court to be combined and heard in the Divisional Court. I can therefore hear both appeals as a single judge sitting in Divisional Court.
[69] Otherwise, as I am also a judge of the Superior Court of Justice, I would hear both appeals while simultaneously wearing both jurisdictional hats as a single judge of both respective courts.
[70] The parties were also content that the motion and appeal be heard by me alone.[2] . Rebello v. Del Property Management
In Rebello v. Del Property Management (Ont CA, 2022) the Court of Appeal considered a challenging appeal routes scenario. The original orders under appeal were of a then-Master (now an associate judge) and were interlocutory, which sent the first appeal correctly to the Superior Court under CJA 17(a). Then the appellant further appealed to the Court of Appeal under CJA 6(2) [which allows consolidation of lower court appeals when a CA appeal still lay - which it didn't]. The Court of Appeal declined jurisdiction and quashed, holding that further appeal lay to the Divisional Court, with leave - under CJA 19(1)(b) [as it was an interlocutory order from the Superior Court]. The ratio of the case seems to be that the determination of final versus interlocutory - even through secondary appeals - is conducted at the hearing of first instance, which in this case was the then-master.
|
