Martin v. 11037315 Canada Inc.

Martin v. 11037315 Canada Inc.

The Court held that there is no direct right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from orders or reports resulting from references under Rule 54; parties must first pursue the remedies in r.54 (motions to set aside or oppose confirmation) or, if time has expired, seek relief from the Superior Court to extend time; s.6(b) of the Courts of Justice Act does not override Rule 54; accordingly the appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

Citation
2025 ONCA 44
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Kelly Martin; Respondent/appellant: 11037315 Canada Inc.; Respondent/appellant: 2670082 Ontario Corp.; Respondent/appellant: Autodome Ltd.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Collection; Appeal From Reference Under Rules of Civil Procedure / Court of Appeal Motion to Quash and Cross Motion to Extend Time Following Superior Court Reference Report and Order
Outcome
Motion to quash granted; appeal quashed for lack of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Reference Under Rule 54, Recusal, Appealability of Reference Orders, Motions to Set Aside or Oppose Confirmation, Extension of Time, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Appeals Property Law Mortgage Law Procedural Fairness Reference Under Rule 54 Recusal Appealability of Reference Orders +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kelly Martin

Applicant/respondent

11037315 Canada Inc.

Respondent/appellant

2670082 Ontario Corp.

Respondent/appellant

Autodome Ltd.

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Collection; Appeal From Reference Under Rules of Civil Procedure / Court of Appeal Motion to Quash and Cross Motion to Extend Time Following Superior Court Reference Report and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a direct appeal lies to the Court of Appeal from orders or reports resulting from references under r.54 and r.64.06
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was required to exhaust remedies under rr.54.05(3) and 54.09(3) before appealing
  3. 3 Whether s.6(b) of the Courts of Justice Act grants jurisdiction to appeal directly from a judge’s reference order

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that there is no direct right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from orders or reports resulting from references under Rule 54; parties must first pursue the remedies in r.54 (motions to set aside or oppose confirmation) or, if time has expired, seek relief from the Superior Court to extend time; s.6(b) of the Courts of Justice Act does not override Rule 54; accordingly the appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Motion to quash granted; appeal quashed for lack of jurisdiction

Orders

  • Appeal quashed.
  • Respondent awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis in the all-inclusive amount of $6,295.00 (CAD).