Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2023-12-19 Docket: M54558 (COA-23-CV-0810)

Parties

BETWEEN Ping Deng Plaintiff (Respondent/Moving Party)

and Danjing Han and Canamex Fire Protection International Inc. Defendants (Appellants/Responding Parties)

Counsel

Shane Greaves, for the respondent/moving party Danjing Han, acting in person

Hearing Details

Heard: December 18, 2023

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Markus Koehnen of the Superior Court of Justice, dated May 17, 2023.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The respondent’s motion to quash the appeal is allowed on the basis that this appeal lies to the Divisional Court.

[2] In her statement of claim, the respondent sought damages of $50,000 plus punitive damages of $50,000. The trial judge awarded the respondent $39,797.26 plus costs of $52,667.55. He dismissed the claim for punitive damages.

[3] The relevant statutory provisions regarding appellate jurisdiction are as follows. Section 6(1)(b)(i) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, provides that an appeal lies to this court from a final order of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice, except an order under s. 19(1)(a). Section 19(1)(a) states that an appeal lies to the Divisional Court from a final order of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice. In this case, the following subsections are relevant: s. 19(1.2)(a) an appeal from an order for a single payment of not more than $50,000, exclusive of costs (the award of $39,797.26); and (c) appeal from an order dismissing a claim for an amount that is not more than $50,000 (claim for punitive damages).

[4] In these circumstances, this court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. It is within the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court. See: Harte-Eichmanis v. Fernandes, 2012 ONCA 266.

[5] We are persuaded that this is not an appropriate case for a transfer under s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act. That said, the quashing of this appeal is without prejudice to the appellants’ seeking leave to extend the time to appeal the decision to the Divisional Court.

[6] Accordingly, the appeal is quashed. The respondent is entitled to her costs from the appellants in the amount of $4,000.

“L.B. Roberts J.A.” “L. Sossin J.A.” “J. Dawe J.A.”