Hud v. West Nipissing (Municipality)
- Citation
- 2026 ONCA 260
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 9 April 2026
- Posture
- Civil / Interlocutory Appeal From a Scheduling Order (appeal Quashed for Lack of Jurisdiction)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 9 April 2026
- Posture
- Civil / Interlocutory Appeal From a Scheduling Order (appeal Quashed for Lack of Jurisdiction)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because a scheduling order is interlocutory and, under binding precedent, the appeal should have been brought to the Divisional Court; accordingly the Court of Appeal could not hear the appeal and left substantive issues to be addressed in the summary judgment motion.
Court disposition
Appeal quashed for lack of jurisdiction; no costs awarded; outstanding issues to be resolved in summary judgment proceedings.
Orders
- Appeal quashed
- Proceedings remitted to the Superior Court of Justice for determination of issues on the summary judgment motion
- No costs awarded on the appeal
02
Material facts
Parties
Lorence Hud
Plaintiff (appellant)The Corporation of The Municipality of West Nipissing
Defendant (respondent) Counsel: Rose Muscolino10306398 Canada Ltd.
Defendant (respondent) Counsel: Ashlee BarberChris Amon
Defendant (respondent) Counsel: Ashlee BarberHis Majesty the King in Right of Ontario
Defendant (respondent) Counsel: Liam DartThe West Nipissing Police Services Board
Defendant (respondent) Counsel: Rose MuscolinoLouise Laforge
Defendant (respondent) Counsel: Rose MuscolinoCharles Seguin
Defendant (respondent) Counsel: Rose MuscolinoRaymond St. Pierre
Defendant (respondent) Counsel: Rose MuscolinoNathalie Rifou
Defendant (respondent) Counsel: Rose MuscolinoPeter Mantha
Defendant (respondent) Counsel: Rose MuscolinoFrancois Savage
Defendant (respondent) Counsel: Rose MuscolinoDavid Van Dusen
Defendant (respondent) Counsel: Liam DartCraig Furtney
Defendant (respondent) Counsel: Liam DartRyan Naismith
Defendant (respondent) Counsel: Liam DartGreg Walsh
Defendant (respondent) Counsel: Liam DartDaniel Bellefeuille
Defendant (respondent) Counsel: Liam DartJason Veley
Defendant (respondent) Counsel: Liam DartE.P. Lefebvre
Defendant (respondent) Counsel: Liam DartJason Perpich
Defendant (respondent) Counsel: Liam DartBrendan Clarke
Defendant (respondent) Counsel: Liam DartJohn Doe
Defendant (respondent) Counsel: Liam Dart03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Appeal From a Scheduling Order (appeal Quashed for Lack of Jurisdiction)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a Superior Court scheduling order
- 02
Whether the appeal should have been brought to the Divisional Court
- 03
Whether to award costs on the appeal
- 04
How outstanding issues should be resolved (summary judgment motion)
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant (acting in person) appealed the June 12, 2025 scheduling order to the Court of Appeal, arguing the scheduling and related interlocutory rulings were erroneous and seeking appellate relief.
- Respondent
- Respondents argued the scheduling order is interlocutory, appeal lies to the Divisional Court under established precedent, the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and the appeal should be quashed; they further submitted outstanding issues should be resolved on the summary judgment motion and opposed costs.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Ontario College of Teachers v. Bouragba, 2021 ONCA 8
Scheduling orders are interlocutory and do not confer Court of Appeal jurisdiction
- 02
Ontario College of Teachers v. Bouragba, 2021 ONCA 8
Appeals from interlocutory orders should ordinarily be brought to the Divisional Court
- 03
Court of Appeal practice and inherent jurisdiction
Appellate courts have discretion to award or refuse costs
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because a scheduling order is interlocutory and, under binding precedent, the appeal should have been brought to the Divisional Court; accordingly the Court of Appeal could not hear the appeal and left substantive issues to be addressed in the summary judgment motion.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted it exercised its discretion not to award costs on this appeal.
- The court observed that the issues of concern to the appellant will be addressed in the summary judgment motion in the Superior Court.
Court disposition
Appeal quashed for lack of jurisdiction; no costs awarded; outstanding issues to be resolved in summary judgment proceedings.
- Appeal quashed
- Proceedings remitted to the Superior Court of Justice for determination of issues on the summary judgment motion
- No costs awarded on the appeal
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal for Ontario · 9 April 2026
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Judgment· 9 April 2026
Hud v. West Nipissing (Municipality) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2026-04-09 Neutral citation 2026 ONCA 260 Docket numbers COA-25-CV-0842 Judges Paciocco, David M.; Thorburn, Julie; Dawe, Jonathan Subject Civil Decision Content
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Hud v. West Nipissing (Municipality), 2026 ONCA 260 DATE: 20260409 DOCKET: COA-25-CV-0842 Paciocco, Thorburn and Dawe JJ.A.
BETWEEN Lorence Hud Plaintiff (Appellant) and The Corporation of The Municipality of West Nipissing, 10306398 Canada Ltd., Chris Amon, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, The West Nipissing Police Services Board, Louise Laforge, Charles Seguin, Raymond St. Pierre, Nathalie Rifou, Peter Mantha, Francois Savage, David Van Dusen, Craig Furtney, Ryan Naismith, Greg Walsh, Daniel Bellefeuille, Jason Veley, E.P. Lefebvre, Jason Perpich, Brendan Clarke, and John Doe Defendants/Moving Parties (Respondents) Lorence Hud, acting in person Rose Muscolino, for the respondents, The Corporation of the Municipality of West Nipissing, The West Nipissing Police Services Board, Louise Laforge, Charles Seguin, Raymond St. Pierre, Nathalie Rifou, Peter Mantha and Francois Savage Ashlee Barber, for the respondents, Chris Amon and 10306398 Canada Ltd. Liam Dart, for the respondents, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, David Van Dusen, Craig Furtney, Ryan Naismith, Greg Walsh, Daniel Bellefeuille, Jason Veley, E.P. Lefebvre, Jason Perpich, Brendan Clarke and John Doe Heard and rendered orally: April 8, 2026 On appeal from the order of Justice M. Gregory Ellies of the Superior Court of Justice, dated June 12, 2025.
REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appeal before us is from a June 12, 2025, scheduling order made in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in connection with longstanding litigation initiated by Mr. Hud against numerous defendants. A scheduling order is an interlocutory order because it does not determine the merits of the dispute: Ontario College of Teachers v. Bouragba, 2021 ONCA 8. The appeal should therefore have been brought to the Divisional Court. Since this is not a final order, this court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The appeal is therefore quashed. The issues of concern to Mr. Hud will be dealt with in the summary judgment motion. [2] We have decided, in our discretion, not to award costs. “David M. Paciocco J.A.” “Thorburn J.A.” “J. Dawe J.A.”
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.