Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: Edgeworth v. Shapira, 2020 ONCA 374

Date: 20200611

Docket: M51258, M51278, M51370 (C67654)

Before: Doherty, Hourigan and Fairburn JJ.A.

Between

Annabelle Maritza Edgeworth

Plaintiff (Appellant/Responding Party)

and

Karyn Shapira, Brian Levine, Northbridge General Insurance Corporation and Andrew Evangelista

Defendants (Respondents/Moving Parties)

Counsel:

Michael Kestenberg and Thomas M. Slahta, for the moving parties Karyn Shapira and Andrew Evangelista

Todd Burke and Samaneh Frounchi, for the moving party Brian Levine

David Zuber, for the moving party Northbridge General Insurance Corporation

Rocco Galati, for the responding party

Heard: in writing

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] The appellant sued the respondents for conspiracy and intrusion on seclusion. She also sued the respondent Karyn Shapira for misrepresentation. Ms. Shapira moved to strike the appellant’s claim without leave to amend, save for the misrepresentation claim. The remaining respondents moved to strike the appellant’s entire claim against them without leave to amend. All respondents also sought an order removing Campisi LLP as lawyers of record for the appellant based on an alleged conflict of interest.

[2] The motion judge struck the claims in conspiracy and intrusion on seclusion but granted the appellant leave to amend his claims regarding these torts. Further, the motion judge ordered Campisi LLP removed as lawyers of record for the appellant. The appellant appeals these decisions.

[3] The respondents bring these motions to quash the appeal, submitting that the motion judge’s order striking parts of the statement of claim is interlocutory because it includes an order granting leave to amend. They further argue that the order removing the appellant’s lawyer is also interlocutory. Their position is that the correct appeal route is to the Divisional Court with leave.

[4] We dismiss the motions to quash the appeal of the order striking the claim. The respondents are correct that an order striking a claim with leave to amend is interlocutory: Dobreff v. Davenport, 2007 ONCA 902, 88 O.R. (3d) 719. However, in this case, the motion judge’s order had the effect of foreclosing amendments to the claims struck. Therefore, the order was final.

[5] Regarding the removal of the appellant’s lawyer, the respondent is right to describe this order as interlocutory: Marrocco v. John Doe, 2014 ONSC 5663 (Div. Ct.). An appeal of an interlocutory order that lies to the Divisional Court with leave should not be combined with an appeal of a final order to this court pursuant to our power under s. 6(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C 43, if leave to appeal the interlocutory order has not yet been obtained from the Divisional Court: Cole v. Hamilton (City), 60 O.R. (3d) 284, 2002 CanLII 49359, at paras. 15-16; and Mader v. South Easthope Mutual Insurance Co., 2014 ONCA 714, 123 O.R. (3d) 120, at para. 55.

[6] The motions to quash the appeal of the order to strike are dismissed. The appeal of the order removing Campisi LLP as lawyers of record for the appellant is quashed. Leave to appeal the removal of counsel order should be sought in the Divisional Court. Given the divided success in this court, we order that there be no costs of the motions.

“Doherty J.A.”

“C.W. Hourigan J.A.”

“Fairburn J.A.”