Court File and Parties

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20211220 DOCKET: M52554 (C69446)

van Rensburg and Roberts JJ.A. and Tzimas J. (ad hoc)

BETWEEN

Arthur Froom Applicant (Appellant/Responding Party)

and

Sonia LaFontaine Respondent (Respondent in appeal/Moving Party)

Counsel: H. Keith Juriansz, for the moving party Arthur Froom, acting in person

Heard and released orally: November 22, 2021

Reasons for Decision

[1] This is a motion to quash an appeal on the basis that the order under appeal (the order of Shore J. dated March 24, 2021) is interlocutory, and therefore can only be appealed to the Divisional Court with leave pursuant to s. 19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

[2] The parties have been involved in litigation for many years, including the family law proceedings in which the subject order was made. The order under appeal arises out of a motion brought by Ms. LaFontaine, for an order that the net proceeds of sale of a disputed property be paid into court and for other relief. The appellant, Mr. Froom, sought an adjournment of the motion, asserting that he was having cataract surgery on April 1st and that until then he was legally blind and could not read or prepare for court attendances, and that he wanted to cross‑examine Ms. LaFontaine on her affidavit material and to introduce viva voce evidence at the motion.

[3] The motion judge decided to adjourn Ms. LaFontaine’s motion, but not for the reasons offered by Mr. Froom. She adjourned the motion to the trial of the proceedings, and she imposed a number of terms. The terms included the requirement that the appellant deposit US$475,000 with the accountant of the Superior Court, in trust, pending the outcome of the trial or consent between the parties. The motion judge also vacated a motion by Mr. Froom that was scheduled for March 30th (to strike Ms. LaFontaine’s pleadings on account of her alleged breaches of court orders). She concluded that the case needed to proceed to trial, and that findings of credibility were going to be crucial to the outcome of any orders made by the court, which is best done at trial with viva voce evidence. She directed that, if Mr. Froom wanted to take the position at the commencement of the trial that Ms. LaFontaine should not have standing to proceed, then he should bring his motion at the commencement of trial before the trial judge.

[4] We agree with Ms. LaFontaine that the order under appeal is interlocutory. It is a “temporary” order and it does not dispose of any substantive issues between the parties on a final basis or deprive Mr. Froom of any possible defence: see Mantella v. Mantella, 2009 CarswellOnt 1060, 2009 ONCA 194, at para. 21.

[5] Mr. Froom makes a number of arguments about the merits of his appeal. Whether an order is final or interlocutory does not depend on the apparent strength of the appeal. As for Mr. Froom’s argument that the motion judge erred in concluding that there was a non-dissipation order in place, and that she made other errors of fact, whether or not that is the case, it is the order and not the reasons that determine whether an order is final or interlocutory: see Ashak v. Ontario (Director, Family Responsibility Office), 2013 ONCA 375, at para. 13.

[6] The motion judge’s order is an adjournment on terms. Invoking her authority under rule 1(7.1) and (7.2) of the Family Law Rules, she gave procedural directions with respect to the litigation, which were imposed as terms to the order adjourning Ms. LaFontaine’s motion. None of the procedural directions, including the requirement to pay money into court pending the outcome of trial or consent and the provision vacating Mr. Froom’s motion scheduled for March 30th, disposes of his substantive rights in the litigation on a final basis. They were adjourned to be determined by the trial judge. As such, the order is interlocutory and any appeal lies to the Divisional Court with leave.

[7] Accordingly, the appeal is quashed. The court denies Mr. Froom’s request to transfer the appeal to the Divisional Court. Costs to Ms. LaFontaine fixed at $8,695.62, all inclusive.

“K. van Rensburg J.A.”

“L.B. Roberts J.A.”

“E. Ria Tzimas, J. (ad hoc)”