Court File and Parties
CITATION: Kandavanam v. Sritaran, 2015 ONSC 2951
COURT FILE NO.: 458/14
DATE: 2015-05-06
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: KANDAVANAM MARIA-ANTONY, ALAIN MARIA-ANTONY, by his litigation guardian, BRIGIT MARIA-ANTONY, and the said BRIDGET MARIA-ANTONY, Plaintiffs/Responding Parties
AND:
SRITARAN SELLIAH, FINANCIAL TRANSPORT INC., 1323109 ONTARIO LTD, and 1362038 ONTARIO LTD., Defendants/Moving Party
BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.
COUNSEL: John J. Adair, for the Plaintiffs Roderic McLauchlan, for the Defendants
Endorsement
[1] The defendant Financial Transport Inc. seeks leave to appeal the decision of A. O’Marra J. dismissing its motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim against it.
[2] I say nothing about the motion judge’s conclusion that the claim against FTI is not barred by the privative provisions in the Worker’s Compensation Act. The motions judge did not make a final order to this effect in favour of the plaintiff. Rather, he declined to grant summary judgment in favour of FTI, leaving all issues outstanding to be argued before the trial judge.
[3] As stated in Silver v. IMAX on the topic of leave to appeal to the Divisional Court:
Where there is an interlocutory decision, the case lives on and the final rights of the parties are determined at trial. There is a right of appeal from the trial decision, usually to the Court of Appeal. One reason to refuse to grant leave to appeal to the Divisional Court is that appellate review is available later, on a full record, after trial. Often it will be neither "important" nor "desirable" to consider an issue on an interlocutory appeal when that same issue may be appealed on a final basis. In criminal cases, where personal liberty may be at stake, there are no interlocutory appeals, and yet justice is still done. Extensive interlocutory appeals in civil cases inevitably cause further delay and cost in a system that is already slow and expensive.[^1]
[4] The motions judge did not seize himself of the remaining steps in this case, nor did he provide a timetable for completion of the case. Neither did he provide reasons for not doing these things. This, arguably, is an error in principle in failing to follow the direction of the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v. Mauldin[^2] and could form a basis for granting leave to appeal. However, this was not the basis advanced on this motion.
[5] I invited counsel to provide a proposed timetable to complete all steps to ready this matter for trial on liability issues. I prefer the proposed schedule set out in Mr Adair’s letter of February 11, 2015. I would extend the dates proposed in that letter by two months, given the date on which these reasons are released. I do not anticipate that counsel will have difficulty adhering to this schedule or amending it on consent as may reasonably be required. However, if something should arise that requires the court’s assistance, then counsel may arrange an appointment to see me for directions.
[6] Motion dismissed. If costs cannot be agreed then the parties shall deliver costs submissions by May 31, 2015.
___________________________
D.L. Corbett J.
Date: May 6, 2015
[^1]: Silver et al. v. IMAX Corporation et al. (2011), 2011 ONSC 1035, 105 O.R. (3d) 212, 2011 ONSC 2015, para. 11.
[^2]: 2014 SCC 7.