COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE: PATRICIA CHERTOW (Applicant (Respondent in Appeal)) – and – BRENT CHERTOW (Respondent (Appellant))

BEFORE: FINLAYSON, CARTHY AND CHARRON JJ.A.

COUNSEL: Susan T. McGrath

For the appellant

Peter J. Doucet

For the respondent

HEARD: May 10, 2001

Motion to quash appeal from the order of Justice Robert Riopelle dated January 3, 2001.

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] This appeal is from a refusal by a motions judge to grant judgment pursuant to r.49.09 on an allegedly accepted offer to settle. The respondent moves to quash the appeal as being from an interlocutory order.
[2] The main argument was that this motion for judgment on the settlement, when dismissed, can be likened to a dismissed summary judgment motion – the issues in the pleadings go forward for trial in both cases and the order has no impact upon the lis between the parties. This argument overlooks the fact that a new lis was created by the alleged settlement, supervening the issues raised in the pleadings. That lis – was there a settlement? – has been fully and finally disposed of by the motions judge and will not go forward to trial.
[3] We are therefore of the view that the order is final and the motion to quash is dismissed. Costs to the appellant.
“G.D. Finlayson J.A.”
“J.J. Carthy J.A.”
“Louise Charron J.A.”