COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
CITATION: Malamas v. Crerar Property Corp., 2012 ONCA 465
DATE: 20120628
DOCKET: M41317
Rouleau, Watt and Pepall JJ.A.
BETWEEN
William Malamas
Plaintiff/Appellant in Appeal
and
Crerar Property Corp., Stewart J.L. Robertson, George Foulidis, Chris Tatsis, Panagiota Tatsis, Gary Caplan and Teplitsky Colson LLP
Defendant/Respondent in Appeal
Counsel:
William Malamas, in person
Constantine Alexiou, for the moving party Panagiota Tatsis
Heard: June 27, 2012
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] This is a motion to quash the appeal from Newbould J.’s order. Newbould J. dismissed the appellant’s appeal of the master’s order setting aside the noting in default of the defendant Panagiota Tatsis.
[2] The responding party makes two principal submissions. First, that Newbould J. committed a procedural error in having referred the matter to be decided by a master. Second, the master’s order and therefore Newbould J.’s order finally determined whether Panagiota Tatsis was estopped from bringing the motion to set aside the default judgment.
[3] We would not give effect to the responding party’s arguments.
[4] In our view Newbould J. did not commit a procedural error as alleged. Rule 37.15(1.1) allows a judge who is directed to hear all matters in multiple proceedings to “refer to a master any motion within the jurisdiction of a master.” Nothing in the direction of the judge directing Newbould J. to hear all matters restricted Newbould J.’s discretion in this regard.
[5] On the second issue raised by the responding party, the fact that a master has finally determined an argument against the setting aside of the noting in default does not change the matter at issue from being interlocutory to being a final. None of the issues raised in the claim or the defence have been finally determined by the order of the master or the Superior Court.
[6] In our view, the motion should be granted and the appeal is quashed.
[7] Costs to the moving party fixed at $3,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.