Heegsma v. Hamilton (City)

Heegsma v. Hamilton (City)

Where interlocutory orders excluding evidence are inextricably interrelated with the constitutional issues in a final-order appeal, the Court of Appeal can assume jurisdiction under s.6(2) because leave to appeal the interlocutory orders would inevitably have been granted; here Grounds 1 and 3 were so interrelated to the Charter s.7 and s.15 issues that they were not barred by res judicata or abuse of process and the motion to exclude those grounds was dismissed.

Citation
2025 ONCA 554
Parties
Applicant/appellant/responding Party: Kristen Heegsma; Applicant/appellant/responding Party: Darrin Marchand; Applicant/appellant/responding Party: Gord Smyth; Applicant/appellant/responding Party: Mario Muscato; Applicant/appellant/responding Party: Shawn Arnold; Applicant/appellant/responding Party: Cassandra Jordan; Applicant/appellant/responding Party: Julia Lauzon; Applicant/appellant/responding Party: Ammy Lewis; Applicant/appellant/responding Party: Ashley Macdonald; Applicant/appellant/responding Party: Corey Monahan; Applicant/appellant/responding Party: Misty Marshall; Applicant/appellant/responding Party: Sherri Ogden; Applicant/appellant/responding Party: Jahmal Pierre; Applicant/appellant/responding Party: Linsley Greaves; Respondent/moving Party: City of Hamilton
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Motion to Strike Interlocutory Grounds Heard in Court of Appeal on Motion Before Appeal of Final Order
Outcome
Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Charter S.7, Charter S.15, Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Orders, Res Judicata, Abuse of Process, Rule 51, S.6(2) Courts of Justice Act
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Appeals Charter S.7 Charter S.15 Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders Res Judicata +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kristen Heegsma

Applicant/appellant/responding Party

Darrin Marchand

Applicant/appellant/responding Party

Gord Smyth

Applicant/appellant/responding Party

Mario Muscato

Applicant/appellant/responding Party

Shawn Arnold

Applicant/appellant/responding Party

Cassandra Jordan

Applicant/appellant/responding Party

Julia Lauzon

Applicant/appellant/responding Party

Ammy Lewis

Applicant/appellant/responding Party

Ashley Macdonald

Applicant/appellant/responding Party

Corey Monahan

Applicant/appellant/responding Party

Misty Marshall

Applicant/appellant/responding Party

Sherri Ogden

Applicant/appellant/responding Party

Jahmal Pierre

Applicant/appellant/responding Party

Linsley Greaves

Applicant/appellant/responding Party

City of Hamilton

Respondent/moving Party

Procedural Posture

Civil / Motion to Strike Interlocutory Grounds Heard in Court of Appeal on Motion Before Appeal of Final Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals without Divisional Court leave under s.6(2)
  2. 2 Whether interlocutory orders are so interrelated with the final order that leave would inevitably have been granted
  3. 3 Whether inclusion of excluded evidence would constitute res judicata or abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

Where interlocutory orders excluding evidence are inextricably interrelated with the constitutional issues in a final-order appeal, the Court of Appeal can assume jurisdiction under s.6(2) because leave to appeal the interlocutory orders would inevitably have been granted; here Grounds 1 and 3 were so interrelated to the Charter s.7 and s.15 issues that they were not barred by res judicata or abuse of process and the motion to exclude those grounds was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed

Orders

  • Motion to exclude Grounds 1 and 3 from the Notice of Appeal is dismissed
  • Documents excluded by the application judge (physician affidavits and Volumes 18–20) may remain in the Appeal Record for the purposes of this appeal