Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: Hawley v. Bapoo, 2007 ONCA 353

DATE: 20070509

DOCKET: M34726 (C44428)

MCMURTRY C.J.O., JURIANSZ and ROULEAU JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

AUTRY AUSTIN RICKY HAWLEY and WILLIAM GREGOR MCNAB

Plaintiffs/Defendants by Counterclaim (Appellants)

and

ABDUL-KARIM BAPOO

Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim (Respondents)

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ONTARIO LOUIS A. RICHER, MARY-ANNE MARS (NEE MACKETT)

Defendants (Respondents)

Counsel:

Brian Shiller for the respondent Bapoo Michael Fleishman for the Crown Kenneth Jull for the appellants

Heard and released orally: May 3, 2007

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The respondent Bapoo moves to quash this appeal on the basis that the appellants are seeking to overturn the reasons for judgment but not the judgment itself. That position is based on the moving party’s reading of the relief sought in the factum filed by the appellants in the appeal. He concedes that the appellants’ Notice of Appeal itself is comprehensive and appeals from the judgment below.

[2] We consider that the Notice of Appeal governs and so dismiss this motion. We note that in their factum responding to this motion the appellants indicate they have not abandoned the relief sought in their Notice of Appeal. Further, they seek leave to file a revised factum in the appeal. They may do so.

[3] The moving party concedes that the appeal of the counterclaim and the appeal of the costs order, if leave to appeal costs is given, should proceed in this court together with the main appeal.

[4] The costs of the motion today are left to the panel hearing the appeal.

“R.R. McMurtry C.J.O.”

“R. Juriansz J.A.”

“Paul Rouleau J.A.”