Reyes v. Valitchka, 2009 ONCA 857

1The appellant seeks a further adjournment of her appeal on the basis that neither she nor her former counsel were served with the respondent’s materials. The record before us reveals that regardless of the dispute concerning service on her former counsel, the appellant was served with the respondent’s materials in compliance with the applicable Rules in August 2009. Further, she has recently served a Notice of Intention to Act in person.

2The respondent argues that the matters under appeal are interlocutory in nature and, therefore, that any appeal from the Order in question lies to the Divisional Court with leave. We agree. The Order in question does not finally dispose of the lis between the parties. In these circumstances, it is unnecessary to deal with the appellant’s adjournment request.

3The appeal is therefore quashed, with leave to the appellant to seek leave to appeal from the Divisional Court.

4The respondent is entitled to some costs for today’s attendance, which we fix in the total sum of $1,500, inclusive of disbursements and GST. The moneys being held in trust by the appellant’s former counsel as security for the costs of this appeal may be dealt with in accordance with these reasons.