Paradigm Quest Inc. v. McInroy

Paradigm Quest Inc. v. McInroy

The portion of the motion judge's order that held the judgment in abeyance constituted an interlocutory stay of execution and is not appealable to the Court of Appeal; therefore jurisdiction properly lies with the Divisional Court with leave under s.19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Citation
2017 ONCA 547
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Paradigm Quest Inc.; Defendant (respondent): Louise McInroy; Defendant (respondent): Timothy Paul McInroy
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Motion Judge's Summary Judgment/default on Mortgage
Outcome
Court of Appeal concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal; jurisdiction lies with the Divisional Court with leave under s.19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Default Under a Mortgage, Stay of Execution, Appealability, Jurisdiction to Hear Appeals
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Mortgage Law Appellate Jurisdiction Summary Judgment Default Under a Mortgage Stay of Execution Appealability Jurisdiction to Hear Appeals

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paradigm Quest Inc.

Plaintiff (appellant)

Louise McInroy

Defendant (respondent)

Timothy Paul McInroy

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Motion Judge's Summary Judgment/default on Mortgage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order holding judgment in abeyance (a conditional stay of execution)
  2. 2 Whether the motion judge had jurisdiction to order the judgment be held in abeyance and impose terms

Ratio Decidendi

The portion of the motion judge's order that held the judgment in abeyance constituted an interlocutory stay of execution and is not appealable to the Court of Appeal; therefore jurisdiction properly lies with the Divisional Court with leave under s.19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Court Disposition

Court of Appeal concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal; jurisdiction lies with the Divisional Court with leave under s.19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Orders

  • Jurisdiction over this appeal properly lies with the Divisional Court with leave under s.19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.
  • Appellant to consult the Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal for directions about bringing the appeal before the proper forum.