Francine Cynthia Sherkin

The Court of Appeal for Ontario quashed the appeal of Michael Paul Duffy, finding that the order under appeal was interlocutory rather than final.

The order in question enforced a right of first refusal for the sale of the matrimonial home, as previously agreed in a consent order.

The court held that the order did not determine the substantive rights of the parties but merely implemented the final consent order, and thus an appeal lay to the Divisional Court with leave, not to the Court of Appeal.

Costs were awarded to Leona Duffy.

This motion concerned the interpretation and enforcement of a consent Final Order regarding the sale of a matrimonial home and the Applicant's Right of First Refusal (ROFR).

The Applicant sought to transfer the Respondent's interest in the home to her, asserting she validly exercised her ROFR based on a "realistic offer" as defined in the Final Order.

The Respondent cross-moved to re-list the home, arguing no "realistic offer" was received and that the parties had repudiated the original sale terms by jointly retaining two realtors.

The court found that the Final Order's terms were modified by mutual agreement to accommodate two realtors, and that a recommendation to accept the offer was made, triggering the ROFR.

The court also determined the Applicant validly exercised her ROFR before the offer expired.

In a protracted family law proceeding involving disputes over alleged oral and written agreements made before and during the marriage, the applicant brought a motion seeking to revisit a prior ruling on the scope of questioning and pre‑trial disclosure.

The respondent alleged that agreements relating to renovation funding and a promissory note were invalid due to breach of fiduciary duty, bad faith, and misrepresentation arising from the applicant’s failure to disclose an extramarital relationship.

The court held that limited additional questioning concerning the applicant’s extramarital relationships was appropriate and ordered the applicant to re‑attend for up to one hour to answer previously refused questions.

The court also confirmed the respondent’s entitlement to detailed accounting supporting the applicant’s financial claim and permitted inquiries relating to the value of an alleged 3% interest in a company involving the added party.

In a family proceeding joined with a related civil action, the responding spouse brought a motion seeking orders compelling the applicant spouse to answer refusals and satisfy undertakings arising from examinations for discovery.

The disputed questions concerned financial disclosure relating to a loan agreement for home renovations and the alleged ownership of shares in a start‑up pharmaceutical company through the applicant or a related corporation.

The court held that further financial disclosure concerning the applicant’s historical assets was not warranted beyond potentially accessible documents relied upon by the accountant, subject to cost reimbursement.

However, disclosure relating to corporate shareholdings and documents connected to the alleged share interest claim was found relevant and ordered to be produced.

Certain undertakings and refusals relating to the corporate issue were ordered satisfied within 30 days.