Vanden Bussche Irrigation & Equipment Limited v. Kejay Investments Inc.

Vanden Bussche Irrigation & Equipment Limited v. Kejay Investments Inc.

Because the motion judge did not expressly invoke the Rules provisions permitting binding determinations nor did the formal order reflect any binding determination on the limitation issue, the ruling that the limitation period had not run was not a final, binding determination; therefore the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the proposed late appeal and the motion for leave to file the late notice of appeal was dismissed.

Citation
2016 ONCA 613
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Vanden Bussche Irrigation & Equipment Limited; Defendant/appellant: Kejay Investments Inc.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Leave to File Late Notice of Appeal/motion in Chambers
Outcome
Motion dismissed; leave to file late notice of appeal denied for want of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Interlocutory Order, Leave to Appeal, Binding Determinations Under Rule 20, Limitation Period Defence
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Appeal Limitations Summary Judgment Interlocutory Order Leave to Appeal Binding Determinations Under Rule 20 Limitation Period Defence

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vanden Bussche Irrigation & Equipment Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Kejay Investments Inc.

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Leave to File Late Notice of Appeal/motion in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge's dismissal of the summary judgment motion constituted a final, binding determination on the limitation period
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to entertain a late notice of appeal from that order
  3. 3 Whether findings in reasons for judgment dismissing a Rule 20 motion are binding without explicit invocation of Rule 20.05 or Rule 20.04(4) and a formal order reflecting the determination

Ratio Decidendi

Because the motion judge did not expressly invoke the Rules provisions permitting binding determinations nor did the formal order reflect any binding determination on the limitation issue, the ruling that the limitation period had not run was not a final, binding determination; therefore the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the proposed late appeal and the motion for leave to file the late notice of appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; leave to file late notice of appeal denied for want of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Motion dismissed.