COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Marmer Penner Inc. v. Vacaru, 2025 ONCA 61

DATE: 20250124

DOCKET: M55471 & M55528 (COA-24-CV-0636)

Trotter, Sossin and Madsen JJ.A.

DOCKET: M55471 (COA-24-CV-0636)

BETWEEN

Marmer Penner Inc.

Plaintiff

(Respondent/Moving Party)

and

Felicia Vacaru

Defendant

(Appellant/Responding Party)

and

Legge and Legge and John Legge

Defendants

(Respondents/Moving Party)

DOCKET: M55528 (COA-24-CV-0636)

AND BETWEEN

Marmer Penner Inc.

Plaintiff

(Respondent/Responding Party)

and

Felicia Vacaru

Defendant

(Appellant/Moving Party)

and

Legge and Legge and John Legge

Defendants

(Respondents/Responding Party)

Felicia Vacaru, for the appellant

Tony Antoniou and Mariam Hanna, for the respondents

Heard and released orally: January 23, 2025

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] There are two motions before the court: the respondents’ motion seeking to quash the appeal for want of jurisdiction; and the appellant’s motion seeking to “disqualify” counsel for the respondents, to compel production of documents, and seeking dismissal of the respondents’ motion.

[2] The first respondent, John Legge, and his law firm, Legge and Legge, acted for the appellant in her divorce proceeding. The second respondent, Marmer Penner Inc., was retained in that proceeding to provide accounting advice. A fee dispute arose, which was resolved by trial before Chalmers J. in 2021 and resulted in a financial judgment against the appellant: see Marmer Penner Inc. v. Purcaru, 2021 ONSC 3785 (the “underlying action”). This court dismissed the appellant’s appeal in 2022: see Marmer Penner Inc. v. Vacaru, 2022 ONCA 280.

[3] In late 2023, the appellant commenced a new action in Superior Court of Justice (the “new action”), alleging, inter alia, that she is owed damages by her former lawyer, the first respondent. The parties attended a case conference before Chalmers J. on May 23, 2024, in relation to the scheduling of the appellant’s intended motion to stay execution of the judgment in the underlying action. The new action has now been dismissed.

[4] In declining to schedule the stay motion in relation to the execution of the underlying judgment in the underlying action, Chalmers J. stated as follows:

The final judgment has been rendered in this action. The appeal of that judgment was dismissed… The issues advanced by [the appellant] to support her position that a motion for stay of enforcement proceedings ought to be scheduled have been fully litigated. This action is at an end.

[5] The appellant now seeks to appeal Chalmers J.’s May 23, 2024 order to this court. This court is without jurisdiction. The order of the motion judge declining to schedule the stay motion is interlocutory, and as such, appeal lies to the Divisional Court. Even if it could be said that the order constitutes a de facto order not to stay enforcement, that too is interlocutory, with the same appeal route: Paradigm Quest Inc. v. McInroy, 2017 ONCA 547; Sun Life Assurance Co. v. York Ridge Developments Ltd. (1998), 1998 CanLII 4519 (ON CA), 116 O.A.C. 103. The appeal is therefore quashed, as sought by the respondents.

[6] Given the history of this matter, we decline to transfer the appeal to the Divisional Court. Should the appellant still wish to appeal, she should follow the applicable rules governing leave to appeal requests to that court.

[7] The quashing of the appeal also resolves the appellant’s motion before this court. This court does not have jurisdiction to hear this motion.

[8] Should the appellant wish to reconstitute her proposed appeal before the Divisional Court, any motions would be brought before that court.

[9] Costs are set at $7,000 to the respondents, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

“Gary Trotter J.A.”

“L. Sossin J.A.”

“L. Madsen J.A.”