Shinder v. Shinder, 2017 ONSC 6391

CITATION: Shinder v. Shinder, 2017 ONSC 6391 Divisional Court File No.: 431/17 Superior Court File No. FS – 16-21091-0000 DATE: 20171027 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT RE: Randi Joy Cogan Shinder, Applicant/Responding Party AND: N eil A llen S hinder, Respondent/Moving Party AND: Solomon Shinder, Respondent/Moving Party BEFORE: Fragomeni, M.G.J. Quigley and Matheson JJ.

COUNSEL: Harold Niman, Daryl Gelgoot, Vanessa Amyot, for the Respondent/Moving Party, Neil Shinder Stephen Grant, Erin Crawford, for the Respondent/Moving Party, Sol Shinder Jaret Moldaver, Lindsay Konkol, for the Applicant/Responding Party, Randi Shinder HEARD in writing at Toronto: October 27, 2017 ENDORSEMENT By the Court: [ 1 ] Two motions for leave to appeal have been brought in this proceeding: one by the respondent Neil Shinder and the other by the respondent Sol Shinder. The moving parties seek to challenge various orders arising from their underlying motions for

summary judgment. [ 2 ] Each of the moving parties acknowledge, in their written submissions, that in addition to seeking leave to appeal to the Divisional Court they have also commenced appeals in the Court of Appeal. They indicate they have done so out of an abundance of caution. The recent and related endorsement of Nordheimer JA has been drawn to our attention: 2017 ONCA 822 . [ 3 ] Although the respondent to the motions for leave notes the duplication and unnecessary expense caused by these parallel steps, no position is taken with respect to the jurisdiction of this Court to hear the proposed appeals.

Similarly, the moving parties have made no submissions about jurisdiction. [ 4 ] As a result of these jurisdictional issues, which have not yet been the subject of submissions by the parties, we are adjourning these motions for leave to appeal to November 17, 2017, and order that the parties take the following steps in the meantime: 1. the moving parties shall deliver supplementary written submissions (up to 10 pages) and any additional authorities, setting out their position on whether each paragraph of the motion judge’s order that they seek leave to appeal is final or interlocutory, and why, by November 3, 2017; 2. the respondent shall deliver supplementary written submissions (up to 10 pages) and any additional authorities, setting out her position on whether each paragraph of the order the moving parties seek leave to appeal is final or interlocutory, and why, by November 10, 2017; 3. the moving parties may deliver a brief written reply (up to 2 pages) by November 14, 2017; 4. all parties shall also address, in their written submissions, their position if this Court concludes that some of the orders are interlocutory and some are final, and shall address the significance, if any, of the decision in Skunk v.

Ketash, 2016 ONCA 841 ; and,

5. all parties may submit updated costs submissions in advance of the new return date for the motions for leave to appeal. [ 5 ] These motions are therefore adjourned to November 17, 2017. [ 6 ] This panel is not seized with this matter. _______________________________ Fragomeni J. _______________________________ M.G.J. Quigley J. _______________________________ Matheson J. Date: October 27, 2017