COURT FILE NO.: 246/07
DATE: 20080505
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
JENNINGS, LEDERMAN aND LOW JJ.
B E T W E E N:
MICHAEL GEORGE STOCKFISH
Applicant
(Appellant)
- and -
REGISTRAR, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act
Respondent
(Respondent in Appeal)
Anthony E. Bak, for the Applicant (Appellant)
Richard Steinecke, for the Respondent (Respondent in Appeal)
HEARD at Toronto: May 5, 2008
JENNINGS J.: (Orally)
[1] Mr. Stockfish appeals an order of the Licence Appeal Tribunal pronounced April 19, 2007, which dismissed his motion for a stay of a hearing of a Notice of Proposal.
[2] The Proposal has yet to be heard; the parties agreeing to await the outcome of this appeal.
[3] In our opinion, this appeal must be dismissed for two reasons.
[4] First, this case cannot be distinguished from that of Roosma v. Ford Motor Co., 66 O.R. (2d) 18, a decision of this court dealing with an appeal from a Board of Inquiry under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The statutory right to appeal in Roosma was in very similar language to the right of appeal in the case before us to be found in s.11 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act. This court held in Roosma that the right of appeal applied only to final decisions or orders.
[5] The order under appeal here is clearly interlocutory.
[6] Further, s.10 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, which precedes s.11, refers to how final orders or decisions of the Tribunal are to be processed, reinforcing the Roosma finding that the power to appeal from Tribunal orders does not apply to interlocutory orders.
[7] We are obliged to follow Roosma.
[8] Second, the appeal is, in our opinion, premature. The issues raised in the Notice of Proposal remain alive. There is ample authority for the proposition that tribunals should be permitted to complete their work before appellate procedures are launched.
[9] The issues before this Tribunal should be dealt with by it before any appeal is taken from whatever order it might ultimately pronounce.
[10] I endorse the Appeal Book and Compendium: “This appeal is dismissed for oral reasons delivered today. Costs to the Respondent fixed at $6,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.”
JENNINGS J.
LEDERMAN J.
LOW J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: May 5, 2008
Date of Release: May 22, 2008
COURT FILE NO.: 246/07
DATE: 20080505
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
JENNINGS, LEDERMAN aND LOW JJ.
B E T W E E N:
MICHAEL GEORGE STOCKFISH
Applicant
(Appellant)
- and -
REGISTRAR, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act
Respondent
(Respondent in Appeal)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JENNINGS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: May 5, 2008
Date of Release: May 22, 2008