COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Rouleau, Watt and Pepall JJ.A.
BETWEEN
William Malamas
Plaintiff/Appellant in Appeal
and
Crerar Property Corp., Stewart J.L. Robertson, George Foulidis, Chris Tatsis, Panagiota Tatsis, Gary Caplan and Teplitsky Colson LLP
Defendant/Respondent in Appeal
Counsel:
William Malamas, in person
Constantine Alexiou, for the moving party Panagiota Tatsis
Heard: June 27, 2012
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
1This is a motion to quash the appeal from Newbould J.’s order. Newbould J. dismissed the appellant’s appeal of the master’s order setting aside the noting in default of the defendant Panagiota Tatsis.
2The responding party makes two principal submissions. First, that Newbould J. committed a procedural error in having referred the matter to be decided by a master. Second, the master’s order and therefore Newbould J.’s order finally determined whether Panagiota Tatsis was estopped from bringing the motion to set aside the default judgment.
3We would not give effect to the responding party’s arguments.
4In our view Newbould J. did not commit a procedural error as alleged. Rule 37.15(1.1) allows a judge who is directed to hear all matters in multiple proceedings to “refer to a master any motion within the jurisdiction of a master.” Nothing in the direction of the judge directing Newbould J. to hear all matters restricted Newbould J.’s discretion in this regard.
5On the second issue raised by the responding party, the fact that a master has finally determined an argument against the setting aside of the noting in default does not change the matter at issue from being interlocutory to being a final. None of the issues raised in the claim or the defence have been finally determined by the order of the master or the Superior Court.
6In our view, the motion should be granted and the appeal is quashed.
7Costs to the moving party fixed at $3,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.