Paulin v. Pinder
The orders dissolving the interlocutory injunction and dismissing the contempt motion are interlocutory; the proper appeal route is by leave to the Divisional Court, therefore the appeal to the Court of Appeal was improperly brought and the motion to quash is granted.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2019 ONCA 661
- Parties
- Appellant: Barry Paulin; Appellant: Wayne Biggar; Respondent: Jack Pinder; Respondent: Victor Dusik; Respondent: Innotech Safety Solutions Inc.
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 22 August 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Motion to Quash Appeal From Interlocutory Orders; Appeal Found to Require Leave to Divisional Court
- Outcome
- Motion to quash the appeal granted; appeal removed for lack of jurisdiction; costs awarded to moving parties.
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Appeal, Leave to Appeal, Motion to Quash, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Barry Paulin
Appellant
Wayne Biggar
Appellant
Jack Pinder
Respondent
Victor Dusik
Respondent
Innotech Safety Solutions Inc.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Motion to Quash Appeal From Interlocutory Orders; Appeal Found to Require Leave to Divisional Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the orders dissolving an interlocutory injunction and dismissing a contempt motion are interlocutory and appealable as of right
- 2 Whether the proper route for appeal is by leave to the Divisional Court
- 3 Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear the appeal as brought
Ratio Decidendi
The orders dissolving the interlocutory injunction and dismissing the contempt motion are interlocutory; the proper appeal route is by leave to the Divisional Court, therefore the appeal to the Court of Appeal was improperly brought and the motion to quash is granted.
Court Disposition
Motion to quash the appeal granted; appeal removed for lack of jurisdiction; costs awarded to moving parties.
Orders
- Motion to quash the appeal granted
- Costs payable to the moving party in the amount of $7,500 inclusive of all applicable taxes and disbursements
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Paulin v. Pinder Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2019-08-22 Neutral citation 2019 ONCA 661 Docket numbers C66933, M50540 Judges Paciocco, David M.; Harvison Young, Alison; Zarnett, Benjamin Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Paulin v. Pinder, 2019 ONCA 661 DATE: 20190819 DOCKET: M50540 (C66933) Paciocco, Harvison Young and Zarnett JJ.A. BETWEEN Barry Paulin and Wayne Biggar Appellants (Responding Parties) and Jack Pinder, Victor Dusik and Innotech Safety Solutions Inc. Respondents (Moving Parties) Douglas J. Spiller, for the appellants Stephen Barbier, for the respondents Heard: August 16, 2019 REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The motion to quash the appeal is granted. We are satisfied that the orders dissolving the interlocutory injunction and dismissing the contempt motion are interlocutory. The proper appeal route is by leave to the Divisional Court. See Hendrickson v. Kallio, [1932] O.R. 675 (C.A.) and The Catalyst Capital Group Inc. v. Moyse, 2015 ONCA 784, 127 O.R. (3d) 625. [2] Costs to be payable to the moving party in the amount of $7,500 inclusive of all applicable taxes and disbursements.