Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2025-10-24

Docket: M55983 (COA-25-CV-0328)

Panel: Huscroft, Coroza and Monahan JJ.A.

Between

124020 Ontario Limited Plaintiff (Appellant/Moving Party)

and

Hike Metal Products Limited and Peninsula Equity Partners-Canada Holdings LLC Defendants (Respondents/Responding Parties)

Counsel

Raymond Colautti and Adam Elkeeb, for the moving party

James H. Cooke, for the responding parties

Heard: In-writing

Reasons for Decision

[1] The moving party brought a motion for directions concerning the February 21, 2025 order of Justice Rady. It asks for directions regarding whether the order is final or interlocutory and the proper route of appeal. The moving party submitted that the order is final and that jurisdiction lies with this court. It has also filed a motion for leave to appeal in the Divisional Court, which has been stayed pending the determination of this motion. The responding parties filed a factum on this motion expressing their agreement that the order is final and the appeal lies to this court.

[2] After learning of the responding parties' position, the Court inquired whether the moving party wished to proceed with the motion. All parties indicated they wanted to proceed and agree that the motion be heard in writing.

[3] Plainly, the parties cannot by their agreement confer jurisdiction on this court that does not otherwise exist. However, given that the parties do not contest jurisdiction, the appeal should be perfected and listed for hearing in the normal course. There is no need to bring a motion in advance for a positive finding as to jurisdiction for the appeal to be heard. Such motions result in a waste of limited judicial resources and create unnecessary delay in having appeals heard on their merits.

[4] Jurisdiction is ultimately a matter for the panel that hears the appeal. In the normal course, if any concerns about jurisdiction arise before the hearing of the appeal, the court's legal officers may inform the parties to be prepared to make submissions at the hearing of the appeal. That has not happened in this case. Where jurisdiction is contested, the responding party may bring a motion to quash the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, which would be heard by a panel in advance of the hearing of the appeal. That has also not happened in this case.

[5] Accordingly, the motion is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

"Grant Huscroft J.A."

"S. Coroza J.A."

"P.J. Monahan J.A."