2015 MBCA 83, 2015 MBCA 83

Citation: Loeppky et al v Taylor McCaffrey LLP, Date: 20150914 2015 MBCA 83 Docket: AI15-30-08336 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Chief Justice Richard J. Chartier Mr. Justice William J. Burnett Mr. Justice Christopher J. Mainella BETWEEN: CORNELIUS P. LOEPPKY, KAREN G. ) LOEPPKY, CORNELIUS P. LOEPPKY ) F. J. Trippier andIN HIS CAPACITY AS A TRUSTEE OF ) I. VakurovaTHE CORNELIUS LOEPPKY FAMILY ) for the AppellantsTRUST, CONNOR BRIDGES IN HIS ) CAPACITY AS A TRUSTEE OF THE ) T. E.

BockCORNELIUS LOEPPKY FAMILY TRUST ) for the Respondents,AND THE CORNELIUS LOEPPKY ) Taylor McCaffrey LLP,FAMILY TRUST ) Norman K. Snyder, and ) Snyder Law Corporation (Plaintiffs) Appellants ) ) J. B. Hirsch- and - ) for the Respondents, ) Duboff Edwards HaightTAYLOR MCCAFFREY LLP, NORMAN ) & Schachter LawK. SNYDER, N. K. SNYDER LAW ) Corporation, Neil J.CORPORATION, DUBOFF EDWARDS ) Duboff Law CorporationHAIGHT & SCHACHTER LAW ) CORPORATION, NEIL J. DUBOFF, ) Appeal heard andAND NEIL J.

DUBOFF LAW ) Decision pronounced:CORPORATION ) September 14, 2015 ) (Defendants) Respondents ) BURNETT JA (for the Court): [1] The plaintiffs appeal a discretionary order which directed that the defendants’ motions for

summary judgment wouldbe heard before examinations for discovery are conducted. [2] The standard of review for an appeal of this nature is well established.

A discretionary order is reviewed on appealaccording to a highly deferential standard, and an appellate court will only be justified in interfering if the motion judge misdirectedhimself or if his decision is so clearly wrong as to amount to an injustice (Towers Ltd v Quinton’s Cleaners Ltd et al, 2009 MBCA 81 atpara 25, 245 ManR (2d) 70, citing Elsom v Elsom, (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 1367 at 1375). [3] Given this highly deferential standard of review and the increasing importance of “a proportionate, more expeditiousand less expensive means to achieve a just result” (Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 at para 4, [2014] 1 SCR 87), counsel shouldcarefully consider the wisdom of appealing interlocutory procedural orders that are primarily concerned with management of the civillitigation process.

Rarely will such appeals be successful. [4] In the present circumstances, we are not persuaded that there was any misdirection, nor do we believe that the motionjudge’s decision was so clearly wrong as to amount to an injustice. We agree with the motion judge that any potential prejudice to the

plaintiffs can be overcome by way of cross-examination, and the fact that the

summary judgment motions will be heard first in no way prevents the plaintiffs from arguing that

summary judgment is not appropriate. [ 5 ] The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs to the defendants. JA CJM JA