Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: Amaral v. Kennedy, 2012 ONCA 517

Date: 20120726

Docket: M41377 (M41182)

Before: Simmons, Juriansz and Epstein JJ.A.

Between

Arnaldo Amaral Applicant (Appellant/Responding Party)

and

Angela Kennedy and Barbara Poplawski Respondents (Respondent in Appeal/Moving Party)

Counsel: Maureen L. Whelton and Colin P. Stevenson, for the moving party Peter R. Jervis, for the responding party

Heard: July 20, 2012

On a motion to quash the motion for leave to appeal from the order of the Divisional Court (Aston, MacKinnon and Moore JJ.), dated March 5, 2012.

Endorsement

[1] The moving party requests an order quashing a motion for leave to appeal from a decision of the Divisional Court. The Divisional Court set aside an order finding that the responding party violated the Municipal Conflicts of Interest Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M50, and dismissed the moving party's application under that Act.

[2] The issue of whether a right of appeal to this court exists from the decision of the Divisional Court is governed by the Municipal Conflicts of Interest Act and not the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C43: s. 15 of the Municipal Conflicts of Interest Act. See also Ruffolo v. Jackson, 2010 ONCA 472, [2010] O.J. No. 2840, at para. 14.

[3] Section 11(2) of the Municipal Conflicts of Interest Act provides that, on an appeal from any order made under s. 10 of the Municipal Conflicts of Interest Act, "[t]he Divisional Court may give any judgment that ought to have been pronounced, in which case its decision is final (emphasis added)".

[4] Given s. 15, this court's decision in Ruffolo v. Jackson and the clear language of s. 11(2) of the Municipal Conflicts of Interest Act, we conclude that there is no right of appeal to this court from the Divisional Court's decision. The motion for leave to appeal is therefore quashed.

[5] Costs of the motion are to the moving party on a partial indemnity scale fixed in the amount of $3,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.