) ) LAURIE ANN HUGGINS ) Graeme B. Fraser , for the Applicant ) ) ) Applicant ) ) – v. –, 2023 ONSC 3312

CITATION : Huggins v. Hayhurst, 2023 ONSC 3312 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 2717/22 DATE: 20230530 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT R.S.J. ELLIES, SACHS AND GIBSON JJ. BETWEEN: ) ) LAURIE ANN HUGGINS ) Graeme B. Fraser , for the Applicant ) ) ) Applicant ) ) – and – ) ) THOMAS EDWARD HAYHURST ) Michael Rappaport , for the Respondent ) ) ) Respondent ) ) ) ) ) HEARD at Ottawa: May 30, 2023, via videoconference ELLIES R.S.J. (Orally) [ 1 ] Mr. Hayhurst seeks to appeal the order of James J. dated May 19, 2022, in which he dismissed Mr. Hayhurst’s motion for

summary judgment. [ 2 ] A preliminary issue arises as to whether the impugned order is an interlocutory or a final order. Leave must be obtained under s. 19(1b) of the Courts of Justice Act and r. 62.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to appeal an interlocutory order. That was not done here. [ 3 ] In our view, contrary to the submissions of the appellant, the order is clearly interlocutory. While an order granting

summary judgment is a final order, an order dismissing a motion for

summary judgment such as this one is not because it does not dispose of a substantive right of any of the parties: Skunk v. Ketash , 2016 ONCA 841 , at para. 58 . [ 4 ] While we have the discretion to grant leave to appeal even at this stage, we would not do so. The test for leave in r. 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure is a stringent one.

Leave may be granted only where there is a conflicting decision by another judge in Ontario and the panel is of the opinion that leave should therefore be granted or where there is good reason to doubt the correctness of the order in question and the proposed appeal involves matters of such importance that the panel believes leave should be granted. [ 5 ] Neither set of circumstances obtain here. We have not been taken to any decision conflicting with that of the motion judge. Nor do we have good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge’s order.

Even if we did, we do not believe the appeal involves matters of such importance that leave should be granted. [ 6 ] The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. [ 7 ] Costs of the appeal are awarded to the respondent in the all-inclusive amount of $10,000.00. ___________________________ Ellies R.S.J.

I agree ___________________________ Sachs J. I agree ___________________________ Gibson J. Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: May 30, 2023 Date of Written Release: June 2, 2023 CITATION : Huggins v. Hayhurst, 2023 ONSC 3312 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 2717/22 DATE: 20230530 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT R.S.J. ELLIES, SACHS AND GIBSON JJ. BETWEEN: LAURIE ANN HUGGINS – and – THOMAS EDWARD HAYHURST ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT M.G. ELLIES R.S.J. Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: May 30, 2023 Date of Written Release: June 2, 2023