Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: Teplitsky Colson LLP v. Malamas, 2012 ONCA 189

DATE: 20120323

DOCKET: M40994 (C54491-C54610)

O’Connor A.C.J.O., Simmons J.A. and Perell J. (ad hoc)

BETWEEN

Teplitsky Colson LLP, Gary Caplan, 2004782 Ontario Limited, 717 Pape Inc., Peter L. Biro, CDG Management Limited, Crerar Property Corp., Danforth Properties Limited, George Foulidis, Goodman and Carr, Jonathan Lisus, McCarthy Tetrault LLP, the Mutual Trust Company (now known as the Clarica Trust Company), Raymond Raphael, Raymond Raphael Professional Corporation, Stewart J.L. Robertson, Nicholas Stanoulis, Donna Stanoulis, Christina Stanoulis, Gary Stanoulis, Thomas Stanoulis, Thomas M.T. Sutton, Chris Tatsis, Panagiota Tatsis, Tonu Toome, Toome Laar & Bell, The City of Toronto

Applicants (Respondents in Appeal)

and

William Malamas, also known as Vasilios Malamas, Apollco Developments Ltd., Apollo Real Estate Limited, Apollco Properties Limited, Apollco Construction Ltd., Apollo Ltd., Pallas Properties Inc.

Respondents (Appellants in Appeal)

Counsel:

Evert Van Woudenberg, for the applicants (respondents in appeal), Teplitsky et al.

William Malamas, appearing in person

Heard and released orally: March 16, 2012

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This endorsement relates to appeals C54491 and C54610.

[2] On this motion to quash, Mr. Malamas confirms that the only orders that we need address are found in paras. 10 and the first two sentences of para. 12 of procedural order 7 and paras. 4, 7, 12 and 16 of procedural order 8.

[3] In our view, all of these orders are interlocutory.

[4] The effect of para. 10 of procedural order 7 is that the multi-party vexatious litigation application CV-11-426057, is subject to the case management regime being conducted by Justice Newbould. This ruling is purely procedural and allows the application to continue. It is, therefore, interlocutory.

[5] Paragraph 12 of procedural order 7 quashes certain summonses issued by Mr. Malamas. Importantly, however, para. 12 provides that Mr. Malamas may apply to Justice Newbould for leave to reissue the summonses. Justice Newbould quashed the summonses only because Mr. Malamas had failed to obtain leave in the first instance in accordance with one of his earlier rulings. Thus, Justice Newbould has not made a final determination as to whether the summonses may issue.

[6] The core of Mr. Malamas’s appeal with respect to procedural order 8 is that Justice Newbould finally determined the issue of whether a partner of Mr. O’Hara’s had committed fraud. Counsel for the moving parties on this motion conceded that the fraud allegation remains open for determination in other proceedings and that procedural order 8 will not be a bar to Mr. Malamas reasserting that allegation in the future. We agree with that concession. That being the case, we do not consider procedural order 8 to be a final order.

[7] In the result, we are satisfied that this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain these appeals. They are, therefore, quashed. Costs of the motion and the appeal are payable to the moving party by Mr. Malamas. Costs are fixed in the amount of $3,500, inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes and are payable within 30 days.

“D. O’Connor A.C.J.O.”

“Janet Simmons J.A.”

“Perell J. (ad hoc)”