Court of Appeal for Ontario
Before: Simmons, Juriansz and Epstein JJ.A.
Between
Arnaldo Amaral Applicant (Appellant/Responding Party)
and
Angela Kennedy and Barbara Poplawski Respondents (Respondent in Appeal/Moving Party)
Counsel: Maureen L. Whelton and Colin P. Stevenson, for the moving party Peter R. Jervis, for the responding party
Heard: July 20, 2012
On a motion to quash the motion for leave to appeal from the order of the Divisional Court (Aston, MacKinnon and Moore JJ.), dated March 5, 2012.
Endorsement
1The moving party requests an order quashing a motion for leave to appeal from a decision of the Divisional Court. The Divisional Court set aside an order finding that the responding party violated the Municipal Conflicts of Interest Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M50, and dismissed the moving party's application under that Act.
2The issue of whether a right of appeal to this court exists from the decision of the Divisional Court is governed by the Municipal Conflicts of Interest Act and not the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C43: s. 15 of the Municipal Conflicts of Interest Act. See also Ruffolo v. Jackson, 2010 ONCA 472, [2010] O.J. No. 2840, at para. 14.
3Section 11(2) of the Municipal Conflicts of Interest Act provides that, on an appeal from any order made under s. 10 of the Municipal Conflicts of Interest Act, "[t]he Divisional Court may give any judgment that ought to have been pronounced, in which case its decision is final (emphasis added)".
4Given s. 15, this court's decision in Ruffolo v. Jackson and the clear language of s. 11(2) of the Municipal Conflicts of Interest Act, we conclude that there is no right of appeal to this court from the Divisional Court's decision. The motion for leave to appeal is therefore quashed.
5Costs of the motion are to the moving party on a partial indemnity scale fixed in the amount of $3,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.