The plaintiff appealed a Master's order compelling answers to discovery questions to the Divisional Court, characterizing it as a final order.
The defendants brought motions to quash the appeal, arguing the order was interlocutory and the proper appeal route was to a Superior Court Judge.
The Divisional Court agreed, finding that an order compelling discovery answers does not finally dispose of the substantive rights of the parties and is therefore interlocutory.
The appeal was quashed.
