Le v. Norris
- Citation
- 2026 ONCA 71
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 3 February 2026
- Posture
- Civil / Interlocutory Appeal From Order Adjourning Trial
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 3 February 2026
- Posture
- Civil / Interlocutory Appeal From Order Adjourning Trial
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appeal was dismissed because the impugned orders were interlocutory and not properly the subject of an appeal, including the subsequent order requiring payment of $13,000 before trial.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Appellant to pay respondent costs of $500, all-inclusive
02
Material facts
Parties
Thuy (Michelle) Bich Thi Le
AppellantRichard Norris
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Costs Awarded to Respondent: CAD 500
- Subsequent Order Amount Referenced: CAD 13,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Appeal From Order Adjourning Trial
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the order adjourning the trial is appealable
- 02
Whether the subsequent order requiring payment of $13,000 before trial is properly before the court
- 03
Whether costs should be awarded on dismissal of the appeal
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant sought to set aside Justice Kurz’s order adjourning the trial and to challenge the subsequent order requiring payment of $13,000.
- Respondent
- The respondent submitted the orders are interlocutory and not properly before the court and supported dismissal of the appeal and an award of costs.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Le v. Norris, 2026 ONCA 71
Interlocutory orders are not properly before the court on appeal unless appealable by statute or leave is granted.
- 02
Le v. Norris, 2026 ONCA 71
Costs may be awarded to the successful party on dismissal of an appeal.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the impugned orders were interlocutory and not properly the subject of an appeal, including the subsequent order requiring payment of $13,000 before trial.
Obiter and limits
- The later order requiring payment of $13,000 before trial superseded the adjournment order but is not properly the subject of this appeal.
- The appellant was self-represented; nevertheless the court awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $500, all-inclusive.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
- Appeal dismissed
- Appellant to pay respondent costs of $500, all-inclusive
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal for Ontario · 3 February 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· 3 February 2026
Le v. Norris Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2026-02-03 Neutral citation 2026 ONCA 71 Docket numbers COA-25-CV-0330 Judges Fairburn, J. Michal; Huscroft, Grant; Zarnett, Benjamin Subject Civil Decision Content
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Le v. Norris, 2026 ONCA 71 DATE: 20260203 DOCKET: COA-25-CV-0330 Fairburn A.C.J.O., Huscroft and Zarnett JJ.A.
BETWEEN Thuy (Michelle) Bich Thi Le Appellant and Richard Norris Respondent Thuy (Michelle) Bich Thi Le, acting in person Richard Norris, acting in person Heard and rendered orally: January 29, 2026 On appeal from the order of Justice Marvin Kurz of the Superior Court of Justice, dated March 13, 2025.
REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant asks this court to set aside Justice Kurz’s order adjourning a trial. That order has been superseded by another that includes the requirement that she pay $13,000 in costs before trial. This latter order is not properly the subject of this appeal. In any event, all of the orders are interlocutory in nature and not properly before this court. [2] The appeal is dismissed. [3] The appellant will pay the respondent costs in the amount of $500, all-inclusive. “Fairburn A.C.J.O.” “Grant Huscroft J.A.” “B. Zarnett 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.