CITATION: Michael Varsava Medicine Professional Corporation v. J. C. Fedoruk Medicine Professional Corporation, 2022 ONSC 1948

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 005/20

DATE: 20220408

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: MICHAEL VARSAVA MEDICINE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION AND DR. BEVERLY A. BEATTIE MEDICINE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, Plaintiffs (Responding Parties)

AND:

J. C. FEDORUK MEDICINE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION AND LIMBOMBE MEDICINE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, Defendants (Moving Parties)

BEFORE: Sachs, Backhouse and Matheson JJ.

COUNSEL: Jacqueline Horvat and Alexandria Chun, for the Defendants (Moving Parties)

James H. Cooke, for the Plaintiffs (Responding Parties)

HEARD: in writing

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The moving party defendants seek leave to appeal the order of Patterson J. dated December 20, 2019, dismissing their motion for summary judgment and granting relief on the plaintiffs’ cross-motion. Their motion for summary judgment was based upon a limitation period defence.

[2] Although the motion judge made findings about the limitation period defence in the reasons for decision, there is no order in that regard. If those findings were final determinations, they ought to have formed part of the order. As the Court of Appeal stated in Skunk v. Ketash, 2016 ONCA 841 at para. 62:

The daily workload of Superior Court motion judges is heavy. Nonetheless, when dismissing a summary judgment motion, I would urge them to specifically consider to what extent they are making determinations of law intended to be binding on the parties at trial, and, if they are intending to make such determinations, invoke r. 20.04(4) and make clear in their orders and reasons that the determination is intended to be binding on the parties at trial.

[3] There is a right of appeal from a final order of a Superior Court justice, which lies to the Court of Appeal unless the amount in issue is within the monetary jurisdiction of the Divisional Court. However, the order dismissing the motion for summary judgment, as signed, is interlocutory. Similarly, the order on the cross-motion, to the extent that it is contested, is interlocutory.

[4] The motion for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs to the respondents fixed at $4,841.

Sachs J.

Backhouse J.

Matheson J.

Released: April 8, 2022