Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: The Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology v. AU Optronics Corporation, 2015 ONCA 808 Date: 2015-11-24 Docket: M45288 (C60370)

Before: Cronk, Hourigan and Benotto JJ.A.

Between:

The Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology Moving Party (Respondent)

and

AU Optronics Corporation, Chi Mei Corporation, Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation, Nexgen Mediatech Inc., and HannStar Display Corporation Responding Party (Appellant)

Counsel: Paul Bates and Kerry McGladdery Dent, for the moving party John Callaghan and Alex Zavaglia, for the responding party

Heard: September 21, 2015

On motion to quash the appeal pending in court file numbered C60370.

Endorsement

[1] In the particular circumstances of this case, the moving party concedes that nothing in the order sought to be appealed, or in the reasons of the motion judge in support of that order, precludes the respondents on appeal in any way from advancing at trial their arguments regarding s. 36(4) of the Competition Act or abuse of process as substantive defences or otherwise. The moving party having thus agreed that it will not advance an argument of res judicata in respect of either issue, this appeal is quashed on the basis of the moving party’s concession that the order below is interlocutory, rather than final, in nature.

[2] We appreciate the responding party’s argument that there is an apparent conflict in certain of this court’s jurisprudence on the issue whether an order dismissing a motion for summary judgment is a final or interlocutory order. It may well be that clarification of this issue by the Civil Rules Committee would advance the interests of the administration of justice.

[3] The moving party is entitled to its costs of this motion, fixed in the total amount of $2,500, inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes.

“E.A. Cronk J.A.” “C.W. Hourigan J.A.”

“M.L. Benotto J.A.”