Leone v. University of Toronto Outing Club

Leone v. University of Toronto Outing Club

The appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction because an order dismissing a Rule 20 summary judgment motion is not final or appealable; any factual comments in the reasons do not produce res judicata or issue estoppel absent express findings under Rule 20.05(1), which must be invoked and referenced in the order.

Citation
2007 ONCA 323
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): James Leone; Defendant (appellant): University of Toronto Outing Club; Defendant (appellant): Kolapore Uplands Wilderness Ski Trails Committee; Defendant (appellant): Bruce Grey Trails Network; Defendant (appellant): The Corporation of the Town of Blue Mountains; Defendant (appellant): Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Government Services
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Dismissal of Motion for Summary Judgment Under Rule 20
Outcome
Appeal quashed for lack of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Appealability, Res Judicata, Issue Estoppel, Jurisdiction, Rule 20.05
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Appealability Res Judicata Issue Estoppel Jurisdiction Rule 20.05

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Leone

Plaintiff (respondent)

University of Toronto Outing Club

Defendant (appellant)

Kolapore Uplands Wilderness Ski Trails Committee

Defendant (appellant)

Bruce Grey Trails Network

Defendant (appellant)

The Corporation of the Town of Blue Mountains

Defendant (appellant)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Government Services

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Dismissal of Motion for Summary Judgment Under Rule 20

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order dismissing a motion for summary judgment under Rule 20 is a final, appealable order
  2. 2 Whether apparent findings of fact in reasons for dismissing a Rule 20 motion can give rise to res judicata or issue estoppel
  3. 3 Whether a motion judge who intends to make findings under Rule 20.05(1) must expressly invoke that provision

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction because an order dismissing a Rule 20 summary judgment motion is not final or appealable; any factual comments in the reasons do not produce res judicata or issue estoppel absent express findings under Rule 20.05(1), which must be invoked and referenced in the order.

Court Disposition

Appeal quashed for lack of jurisdiction

Orders

  • Appeal quashed
  • No costs