CITATION: Angelini v. Angelini, 2008 ONCA 399

DATE: 20080521

DOCKET: M36183 (C48258)

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

DOHERTY, MOLDAVER and CRONK JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

PIETRO ANGELINI

Applicant (Respondent in Appeal) (Moving Party)

and

IDA MOLINARO ANGELINI

Respondent (Appellant in Appeal)

Rodica David, Q.C., for the moving party, Pietro Angelini

Philip M. Epstein, Q.C., for the respondent, Ida Molinaro Angelini

Heard: May 13, 2008

On appeal from the order of Justice T. Herman of the Superior Court of Justice, dated January 9, 2008.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] In our view, this order is interlocutory in nature. Accordingly, leave to appeal is required from the Divisional Court.

[2] Nothing in the terms of the order precludes renewal by the wife of an abuse of process argument at the hearing of the main application, if so advised. Nor do we read the motion judge’s reasons as indicating otherwise. To the contrary, the reasons indicate that the motion judge simply determined that, on the record before her, she was unable to say whether the husband’s main application (except as it applied to support) constituted an abuse of process. The order itself is consistent with that reading of the reasons.

[3] Accordingly, the motion to quash is allowed. The moving party is entitled to his costs of this motion as agreed by counsel, in the amount of $2,500, inclusive of disbursements and GST, payable in any event of the cause.