2011 NBCA 99, 2011 NBCA 99

COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK 115-11-CA KELTY DRUET (Responding party on motion) APPELLANT KELTY DRUET (Partie intimée dans la motion) APPELANTE - and - - et - MARC GIROUARD (Moving party on motion) RESPONDENT MARC GIROUARD (Auteur de la motion) INTIMÉ Druet v. Girouard, 2011 NBCA 99 Druet c.

Girouard, 2011 NBCA 99 CORAM: The Honourable Chief Justice Drapeau The Honourable Justice Larlee The Honourable Justice Quigg CORAM : L’honorable juge en chef Drapeau L’honorable juge Larlee L’honorable juge Quigg Appeal from a decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench: August 9, 2011 Appel d’une décision de la Cour du Banc de la Reine : Le 9 août 2011 History of Case: Historique de la cause : Decision under appeal: Unreported Décision frappée d’appel : Inédite Preliminary or incidental proceedings: N/A Procédures préliminaires ou accessoires : s.o.

Motion heard: October 11, 2011 Motion entendue : Le 11 octobre 2011 Judgment rendered: October 11, 2011 Jugement rendu : Le 11 octobre 2011

Counsel at hearing: For the moving party: Michel C. Leger Kelty Druet appeared in person Avocats à l’audience : Pour l’auteur de la motion : Michel C. Leger Kelty Druet a comparu en personne THE COURT The Court allows the motion for an order confirming that the decision under appeal is interlocutory for the purposes of Rule 62.03(1)(

a) of the Rules of Court . LA COUR La Cour accueille la motion visant à obtenir une ordonnance confirmant que la décision frappée d’appel est interlocutoire aux fins de la règle 62.03(1)

a) des Règles de procédure . The following is the judgment delivered by THE COURT (Orally) [ 1 ] The moving party seeks an order confirming that an appeal does not lie without leave from the contested decision, which is a determination of a question of law under Rule 23.01(1)(

a) of the Rules of Court . The specific question submitted for determination by the Court of Queen’s Bench was whether emails exchanged by the parties “amount to a binding agreement of sale” in respect of a condo property. [ 2 ] The moving party contends the determination in question is an interlocutory decision for which leave to appeal is required under Rule 62.03(1)(a). We agree and refer the responding party’s motion for leave to appeal to the motions judge. Each side will bear its own costs. _____________________________________ J. ERNEST DRAPEAU CHIEF JUSTICE OF NEW BRUNSWICK _____________________________________ M.E.L. LARLEE, J.A.

______________________________________ KATHLEEN A. QUIGG, J.A.