Kent v. Chin and Orr Lawyers
The order under appeal was interlocutory because it did not finally determine any issue; therefore the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction and the appeal was quashed without prejudice to the appellant's right to seek leave in the Divisional Court.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2017 ONCA 223
- Parties
- Appellant: Paul Kent; Respondent: Chin and Orr Lawyers; Respondent: Alousis Law Professional Corporation
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 20 March 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Motion to Quash Appeal for Want of Jurisdiction in the Court of Appeal (appeal From Motion Judgment)
- Outcome
- Appeal quashed for want of jurisdiction without prejudice to appellant's right to apply to the Divisional Court for leave to appeal.
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Order, Default Judgment, Consolidation, Jurisdiction, Leave to Appeal
- 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
Paul Kent
Appellant
Chin and Orr Lawyers
Respondent
Alousis Law Professional Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Motion to Quash Appeal for Want of Jurisdiction in the Court of Appeal (appeal From Motion Judgment)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the order appealed from is interlocutory and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal
- 2 Whether the appellant failed to comply with the Rules (r.19.01) by not requiring the Registrar to note the respondents in default
- 3 Whether costs should be awarded to the respondents for the motion to quash
Ratio Decidendi
The order under appeal was interlocutory because it did not finally determine any issue; therefore the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction and the appeal was quashed without prejudice to the appellant's right to seek leave in the Divisional Court.
Court Disposition
Appeal quashed for want of jurisdiction without prejudice to appellant's right to apply to the Divisional Court for leave to appeal.
Orders
- Appeal quashed without prejudice to the appellant's right to apply to the Divisional Court for leave to appeal.
- Costs of $1,500 to each of the two moving parties, all inclusive.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Kent v. Chin and Orr Lawyers Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2017-03-20 Neutral citation 2017 ONCA 223 Docket numbers C62928, M47417 Judges Epstein, Gloria Jean; Benotto, Mary Lou; Trotter, Gary T. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Kent v. Chin and Orr Lawyers, 2017 ONCA 223 DATE: 20170320 DOCKET: M47417 (C62928) Epstein, Benotto and Trotter JJ.A. BETWEEN Paul Kent Appellant (Responding Party) and Chin and Orr Lawyers and Alousis Law Professional Corporation Respondents (Moving Parties) Paul Kent, acting in person Sabrina Lucenti, for the respondents, Chin and Orr Lawyers Alexander Melfi, for the respondent, Alousis Law Professional Corporation Heard and released orally: March 16, 2017 On a motion to quash the appeal from the judgment of Justice Susan E. Healey of the Superior Court of Justice, dated October 18, 2016. ENDORSEMENT [1] The respondent's move to quash this appeal for want of jurisdiction. [2] In this action, the appellant claims damages in connection with his purchase of property. Originally, the appellant's claim was advanced in two actions – one against each respondent. The actions were then consolidated. The appellant brought a motion for default judgment against the respondents on the basis of their failure to deliver amended statements of defence in the consolidated action. [3] The motion judge dismissed the motion for default judgment for reasons including that the appellant had failed to require Registrar to note the respondents in default (r.19.01). [4] The respondents take the position that the order appealed from is interlocutory. [5] We agree. The order under the appeal does not finally determine any issue in this proceeding. It is therefore interlocutory. Jurisdiction lies with the Divisional Court. Hendrickson v. Kallio, [1932] O.J. No. 380 (C.A.). [6] The appeal is quashed without prejudice to the appellant's right to apply to the Divisional Court for leave to appeal. [7] We order costs in the amount of $1,500 to each of the two moving parties, all inclusive. [8] Approval of this order as to form and content is dispensed with. "Gloria Epstein J.A." "M.L. Benotto J.A." "G.T. Trotter J.A."