Court of Appeal for Ontario
Weiler, Watt and Epstein JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Andrey Pinsky
Plaintiff (Appellant/Responding Party)
and
Scott D. Smiley and the Concept Law Group, P.A.
Defendants (Respondents/Moving Parties)
BETWEEN
Andrey Pinsky
Plaintiff (Appellant/ Moving Party by way of cross-motion)
and
Scott D. Smiley and the Concept Law Group, P.A.
Defendants (Respondents/ Responding parties by way cross-motion)
May Cheng, for the moving parties, responding parties by way of cross-motion
Andrey Pinsky, acting in person
Heard and released orally: January 22, 2015
ENDORSEMENT
1This is a motion to quash Mr. Pinsky’s appeal as being interlocutory. Mr. Pinsky, a lawyer representing himself, concedes that the decision on a motion to remove counsel is interlocutory. He submits, however, that the motion judge’s refusal to grant him an adjournment to examine a third party is a final one and that as a result this court has jurisdiction. The appellant was seeking an adjournment to examine witnesses for whom solicitor client privilege is presently claimed. In the circumstances, the request for an adjournment was intertwined with the refusal to remove Fasken’s as solicitors of record, and it, too, was not a final order as it flowed from the refusal to remove Fasken’s and was an attempt to circumvent it. Accordingly, the motion to quash is granted. The cross-motion is dismissed.
2This decision is without prejudice to Mr. Pinsky’s right to apply for an extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal to the Divisional Court and if granted to appeal to the Divisional Court.
3Costs are fixed in the amount of $2500 all inclusive payable forthwith.
“K.M. Weiler J.A.”
“David Watt J.A.”
“Gloria Epstein J.A.”