The moving parties brought a motion to quash the appeal on the basis that the order appealed from was interlocutory.
The underlying action involved claims of negligence and invasion of privacy following a human rights complaint.
The appellants had previously moved for summary judgment and to rely on two reports provided by the moving parties to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
The motion judge refused the request to rely on the reports, finding they were subject to an implied undertaking.
The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge's order did not determine any substantive rights and was therefore interlocutory.
The appeal was quashed, as jurisdiction lies with the Divisional Court with leave.
