Brown v. Ontario

Brown v. Ontario Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2014-11-17 Neutral citation 2014 ONCA 806 Docket numbers C59327, M44293 Judges Cronk, Eleanore Ann; Gillese, Eileen E.; Rouleau, Paul S. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Brown v. Ontario, 2014 ONCA 806 DATE: 20141117 DOCKET: M44293 (C59327) Cronk, Gillese and Rouleau JJ.A. BETWEEN Sylviette Rita Brown, Trustee Respondent/ Appellant in appeal and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, Eric Jolliffe, Chief of Police for the Regional Municipality of York, Paul Pedersen, York Regional Police Superintendent, Keith Merith, York Regional Police Superintendent, Christopher Armstrong, York Regional Police Detective, Constable Jim Wright, York Regional Police Detective, Constable Jane Doe 1, John Doe 1, John Doe 2 and John Doe 3 Moving Parties/ Respondents in appeal Sylviette Brown, in person David Elman, for the respondents Heard and released orally: November 12, 2014 ENDORSEMENT [1] The moving parties, the respondents in the underlying appeal, move to quash this appeal on the basis that the order sought to be appealed is interlocutory, rather than final, in nature, among other grounds. [2] At the commencement of oral argument, the appellant sought an adjournment of the motion pending the determination of a recusal motion brought by her in the Superior Court, apparently scheduled for argument on December 2, 2014, and to provide her with time to perfect her appeal. The litigation between the parties has been marked by numerous adjournments, requested or occasioned by the appellant. Neither the perfection of the appellant’s appeal nor the determination of her unrelated recusal motion concerning the Superior Court case management judge is necessary for adjudication of the respondents’ motion to quash in this court. Accordingly, we denied the appellant’s request for an adjournment. [3] Turning to the merits of the motion to quash, the order in question is an order of a Superior Court judge denying an adjournment and setting a date for argument of the respondents’ pending motion to strike the appellant’s statement of claim. This type of order does not affect the substantive merits of the dispute between the parties or their final rights. The order, therefore, is clearly interlocutory in nature, any appeal from which lies to the Divisional Court with leave rather than to this court. On this ground alone, the appeal must be quashed. [4] The motion is allowed and the appeal is quashed for want of jurisdiction. Costs of the motion are awarded to the moving parties, fixed in the amount of $2,000, inclusive of all disbursements and applicable taxes. “E.A. Cronk J.A.” “E.E. Gillese J.A.” “Paul Rouleau J.A.”