Court File and Parties
Court of Appeal for Ontario Date: 20241219 Docket: COA-24-CV-0453
George, Favreau and Gomery JJ.A.
Between:
Mohammad Reza Baybourdi Applicant (Respondent)
and
Starkman Barristers, Starkman Lawyers Respondent (Appellant)
Counsel: Paul H. Starkman and Calvin Zhang, for the appellant Mohammad Reza Baybourdi, acting in person
Heard and released orally: December 18, 2024
On appeal from the order of Justice Jasmine T. Akbarali of the Superior Court of Justice, dated April 2, 2024.
Reasons for Decision
Introduction
1The application judge made an order that the appellant’s accounts were to be assessed pursuant to the Solicitor’s Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.15. The appellant seeks to appeal that order to this court.
Jurisdiction
2Prior to the hearing, the court sent a letter to the parties raising this court’s jurisdiction over the appeal. At the beginning of the hearing, we asked the parties to address the issue of jurisdiction.
3After considering the parties’ submissions, we have concluded that this court does not have jurisdiction over the proposed appeal because the order referring the accounts for assessment is interlocutory.
4The motion judge’s order does not finally determine the real issue between the parties. Rather, the issue of whether the contested accounts should be referred for assessment is a preliminary procedural matter. As this court observed in Durbin v. Brant, 2017 ONCA 463, at para. 6, which was also a proposed appeal from an order referring a solicitor’s accounts for assessment, “[t]he appellant has not been deprived of a substantive right because he is not precluded from defending the quantum of his account. That is the real matter at issue between the parties and it has yet to be determined.”
5In argument, the appellant relies on Norris v. Starkman, 2020 ONCA 744. In that case, however, one of the issues on appeal was the determination of the proper parties to the assessment. In addition, we note that the issue of jurisdiction was never raised.
6An appeal from an interlocutory order lies to the Divisional Court, with leave, pursuant to s. 19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43. This court therefore does not have jurisdiction over this proposed appeal.
Disposition
7The appeal is quashed.
Costs
8Costs to the respondent in the amount of $500, inclusive of disbursements and HST.
“J. George J.A.”
“L. Favreau J.A.”
“S. Gomery J.A.”