COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Bilich v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2015 ONCA 149

DATE: 20150306

DOCKET: M44643 C59697

Laskin, Rouleau and Huscroft JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Robert Bilich

Respondent to Motion/Appellant in Appeal/Plaintiff

and

Toronto Police Services Board, William Blair, Mark Pugash, Reuben Stroble, Blake Shreve, Suzanne Pinto, Stephen Ruffino, Ian Sapsford, Candy Graham, Victoria Balice, and Wendy Drummond

Moving Parties/Respondents in Appeal/Defendants

Robert Bilich, acting in person

Michael Smith, for the Moving Parties, respondents in appeal

Heard and released orally: February 27, 2015

Motion for an order quashing the appeal from the order of Justice Frederick L. Myers dated November 20, 2014.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] Robert Bilich appeals from the order of Myers J. staying his action to allow time for him to pay costs awards and to rethink his litigation strategy. The respondents move to quash the appeal on the basis that Myers J.’s order is interlocutory, not final.

[2] The appellant sued the defendants for $10 million in damages arising out of his having been arrested and charged with criminal harassment in 2008. Most of the appellant’s claims were struck by Frank J. In the course of various proceedings appealing the order of Frank J., over $6,000 in costs have been awarded against the appellant.

[3] The appellant amended his statement of claim and the respondents moved to strike. Justice Myers adjourned the motion and ordered that the appeal be stayed until the appellant paid the outstanding costs orders (including the costs of the motion) and set a final payment date of May 23, 2015, after which the respondents could move to dismiss the action with notice if the costs were not paid, or move to strike the claim if the costs were paid. In addition, Myers J. struck the appellant’s affidavit subject to a motion for leave to re-file it and ordered that the record be sealed and not form part of the public record, pending further order of a Master or Judge.

[4] The appellant appeals Myers J.’s order and the respondents seek to quash the appeal on the basis that the order is interlocutory rather than final in nature.

[5] It is clear that the decision under appeal did not finally determine any substantive matter in the litigation. Justice Myer’s decision merely stayed the action while costs awarded to the respondents remained outstanding. Justice Myers provided a fixed date by which the appellant could pursue the action by paying the costs and made clear that the respondents could neither move to dismiss the action nor have it struck until that date has passed.

[6] The appellant may seek leave to re-file the affidavit if the stay is lifted. Likewise, the sealing order may be lifted if the appellant is able to demonstrate that the transcript and affidavit are admissible and are complete and certified, in compliance with legal requirements.

[7] Given that it remains open to the appellant to pursue the action, it follows that the decision under appeal is interlocutory rather than final in nature and the appeal must be brought before the Divisional Court with leave.

[8] Accordingly, the appeal is quashed.

[9] Costs to the respondent fixed at $2,000, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

“John Laskin J.A.”

“Paul Rouleau J.A.”

“Grant Huscroft J.A.”