|
Appeals - Appeal is from Order not Reasons. Kerk-Courtney v. Security National Insurance Company (TD General Insurance Company)
In Kerk-Courtney v. Security National Insurance Company (TD General Insurance Company) (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by defendant vendors who sought a 'duty to defend' declaration against their insurers, which was dismissed below.
Here the court reminds us that appeals are of orders, not reasons:[24] Although the respondent has raised these issues by bringing a cross-appeal, this step was procedurally unnecessary since appeals are against orders, not reasons, and the respondent is not seeking to vary the order in the court below dismissing the appellants’ application: see footnote 1 and r. 61.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. . Zoghibi v. Air Canada
In Zoghibi v. Air Canada (Fed CA, 2024) the Federal Court of Appeal considered an appeal of a JR challenging a CHRC decision, here stemming from a complaint by an airline passenger seeking 'financial relief' for alleged discrimination.
Here the court holds that appeals are of 'orders' not 'reasons':[76] Air Canada submits that the appellant won in the Federal Court and it is really just appealing the Federal Court’s reasons. It submits, correctly, that appeals from the Federal Court lie only against the Federal Court’s judgments, not its reasons: Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, s. 27(1); Ratiopharm Inc. v. Pfizer Canada Inc., 2007 FCA 261, 60 C.P.R. (4th) 165 at para. 6; Fournier v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 265 at para. 28. . Canadian National Railway Company v. Holmes
In Canadian National Railway Company v. Holmes (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal made a useful point about appeals:[7] It is well-established that an appeal is from the order rather than the reasons for the order: Cirillo v. Ontario, 2021 ONCA 353, 486 C.R.R. (2d) 25, at para. 73; Fram Elgin Mills 90 Inc. v. Romandale Farms Limited, 2016 ONCA 404, 131 O.R. (3d) 455, at para. ... . Manafa v. Tannous
In Manafa v. Tannous (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court stated the straightforward legal point that appeals are 'from orders, not reasons':[42] In any event, as counsel for the Respondent correctly pointed out, an appeal lies from an Order and not a judgment. Grand River Enterprises v. Burnham (2005), 2005 CanLII 6368 (ON CA), 197 O.A.C. 168 (C.A.) at para. 10. ... . Canada (Attorney General) v. Benjamin Moore & Co.
In Canada (Attorney General) v. Benjamin Moore & Co. (Fed CA, 2023) the Federal Court of Appeal cited an earlier Federal Court of Appeal case where it 'found' an exception to the rule that a party cannot appeal reasons, but only orders. I find the reasoning used for this to be strained - a device to address a self-admitted patent doctrinal 'mess' [SS: my term] created when the Federal Court took it on itself to gratuitously articulate a new 'test' legal test at the urging of the CIPO and some parties without it being necessity for the resolution of the case:[9] Before us, the AG appeals the FC Decision. This appeal focuses solely on the test stated at paragraph 3 of the Federal Court’s judgment. BM filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the AG was attacking the reasons for judgment rather than the judgment. Justice Rennie dismissed the motion (2022 FCA 194), stating that paragraph 3 of the Federal Court’s judgment is a specific direction akin to a declaratory judgment. This is quite different from general references to reasons in a formal judgment, which do not form part of the judgment itself. ... . Jasiobedzki v. Jasiobedzka
In Jasiobedzki v. Jasiobedzka (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered the nature of an appeal, specifically that appeals challenge orders, not reasons for decision:[10] We do not have the authority to revise the decisions that come before us to rectify errors. An appeal is from a judge’s order, not from their reasons. This court’s powers on appeal therefore relate only to the order: Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 134; see Trez Capital Limited Partnership v. Bernstein, 2018 ONCA 107, at para. 26, citing Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insulation, Local 675 Pension Fund (Trustees of) v. SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., 2015 ONCA 718, 340 O.A.C. 271, at para. 13, MacKinnon v. Ontario (Municipal Employees Retirement Board), 2007 ONCA 874, 88 O.R. (3d) 269, at para. 44. The endorsement cannot be corrected, even if errors appear. Our task is to determine whether any errors that may have occurred, including the factual errors the husband asserts, provide a basis for setting aside the trial judge’s orders. . Johwel Investments Inc. v. Welton
In Johwel Investments Inc. v. Welton (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal made the essential point that appeals are of orders, not reasons:[23] As explained in John Sopinka, Mark A Gelowitz and W. David Rankin, Sopinka and Gelowitz on the Conduct of an Appeal, 4th ed. (LexisNexis, 2018, Toronto), at §1.11:It is a fundamental premise in the law of appellate review that an appeal is taken against the formal judgment or order, as issued and entered in the court appealed from, and not against the reasons expressed by the court for granting the judgment or order. Although the appellate court will frequently discover in the reasons for judgment errors of law that ultimately ground the reversal of the judgment or order, it is the correctness of the judgment or order that is in issue in the appeal, and not the correctness of the reasons. An appeal directed at only a portion of the reasons, as opposed to the correctness of the order, is liable to be quashed. [Footnotes omitted.] . R. v. J.C.
In R. v. J.C. (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal comments on the adequacy of reasons:[4] An appeal lies from the judgment, not the reasons for judgment. Poor articulation of reasons, by itself, does not provide a ground for appellate intervention. As the Supreme Court cautioned in R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869, at para. 26: “The appellate court is not given the power to intervene simply because it thinks the trial court did a poor job of expressing itself.” . Ross v. Canada Trust Company
In Ross v. Canada Trust Company (Ont CA, 2021) the Court of Appeal considers the principle that an appeal is from an order, not reasons:[53] The Respondents’ cross-appeal reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of an appeal. As s. 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, states, an appeal lies to this court from a “final order” of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice, save for orders from which appeals lie to the Divisional Court. The authorities are clear: an appeal lies from the order or judgment, not the reasons for them: R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869, at para. 4. This important distinction is explained succinctly in John Sopinka, Mark Gelowitz & W. David Rankin, Sopinka and Gelowitz on the Conduct of an Appeal, 4th ed. (Toronto: LexisNexis, 2018), at §1.11:It is a fundamental premise in the law of appellate review that an appeal is taken against the formal judgment or order, as issued and entered in the court appealed from, and not against the reasons expressed by the court for granting the judgment or order. Although the appellate court will frequently discover in the reasons for judgment errors of law that ultimately ground the reversal of the judgment or order, it is the correctness of the judgment or order that is in issue in the appeal, and not the correctness of the reasons. . Amphenol Canada Corp. v. Sundaram
In Amphenol Canada Corp. v. Sundaram (Ont CA, 2019) the Court of Appeal commented as follows:[21] Moreover, the law is clear that an appeal lies from the order, not the reasons for granting the order: Grand River Enterprises v. Burnham (2005), 2005 CanLII 6368 (ON CA), 197 O.A.C. 168 (C.A.), at para. 10. As such, the appeal is not from the reasons of Faieta J., in which he held that he accepted there was a prima facie case of fraud. . Brunning v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Brunning v. Canada (Attorney General) (Ont CA, 2018) the Court of Appeal states the oft-repeated rule that appeals are from the order, not the reasons for them being given:[22] As understandable as the appellant’s concerns may be, those concerns do not give rise to a right of appeal in this court. The Eastern Administrative Judge’s comments about counsel are not part of the order he made. The order consists of the direction that the appellant and her client appear as required before the IAP Adjudicator on January 19. The essence of the order is found at para. 35 of the January 15 Direction:I, therefore, direct Ms. Brunning to appear and participate in the closing submissions as directed by the IAP Adjudicator on Friday, January 19, 2018. I direct her to advise Court Counsel whether she will comply or will refuse to comply with this direction by no later than Wednesday, January 17, 2018, 4:00 p.m. [23] An appeal lies only from the terms of an order and not from the reasons for judgment giving rise to the order: Grand River Enterprises v. Burnham (2005), 10 C.P.C. (6th) 136, at paras. 9-10 (Ont. C.A.). . Ontario Wealth Management Corporation v. Sica Masonry and General Contracting Ltd.
In Ontario Wealth Management Corporation v. Sica Masonry and General Contracting Ltd. (Ont CA, 2014) the Court of Appeal noted the requirement that an order appealed from must be formalized for purposes of the appeal, and the principle that an appeal is of the order or judgment below, not of the reasons for decision:[5] When the motion was heard, there was no signed and entered order before the court. The appeal lies from the order, not from the reasons: see Re Bearcat Exploration Ltd., 2003 ABCA 365 (CanLII), 2003 ABCA 365, at para. 13. The formal order must be before an appellate court, because it is the correctness of the disposition, and not the reasons, which is in issue: see Re Smoke (1989), 77 C.B.R. (N.S.) 263 (Ont. C.A.). . Butera v. Chown, Cairns LLP
In Butera v. Chown, Cairns LLP (Ont CA, 2017) the Court of Appeal restated case authority for the well-established rule that appeals are from Orders, not from Reasons for Decision.[16] In my view, the motion judge erred in law in framing the issue as an analysis of whether there was an appeal from the “finding” of no misrepresentation. While issue estoppel may be based on reasons alone (see Donald J. Lange, The Doctrine of Res Judicata in Canada, 4th ed (Markham, ON: LexisNexis Canada, 2015) at pp. 16-18), an appeal is from an order or a judgment, not from the reasons for decision: Fram Elgin Mills 90 Inc. v. Romandale Farms Ltd., 2016 ONCA 404 (CanLII), 131 O.R. (3d) 455, at para. 33; and Glennie v. McD. & C. Holdings Ltd., 1935 CanLII 32 (SCC), [1935] S.C.R. 257, at p. 268.
|
