Canada: Ontario Court Of Appeal Divided On Interlocutory V. Final Nature Of Order Permitting Superior Court To Sit Outside Province

The Ontario Court of Appeal's March 13, 2015 decision in Parsons v. Ontario added additional complexity to the procedure surrounding multi-jurisdictional class actions. A sharply divided Ontario Court of Appeal (all three judges wrote separately) held that it was an error of law to hold a sitting of the Ontario Superior Court outside of Ontario in the absence of a video link to a courtroom in Ontario. A majority of the Court held that such a video link was necessary to ensure that the Ontario public has access to the proceedings.

But before turning to that issue (discussed further at the Osler Class Action Defence Blog), a (different) majority of the Court first held that an appeal from an order permitting a sitting of the Superior Court outside of the province is likely to be considered a "final" order rather than an interlocutory order, meaning an appeal of that order is taken to the Ontario Court of Appeal rather than the Divisional Court. It remains to be seen whether this holding will be constrained to the circumstances of Parsons – namely, where a court-approved settlement is being supervised. The decision further provided helpful reminders of the circumstances in which a Court will hear a moot appeal, and the standard of review of discretionary decisions of judges in the class action context.

The Facts

Parsons arose from multi-jurisdictional class actions concerning the infection of persons with Hepatitis C through the Canadian blood supply. Courts in Ontario, British Columbia and Québec certified parallel class proceedings, which were settled in 1999. The settlement assigned a supervisory role to the superior courts of all three provinces. It also provided that all three courts were required to issue identical orders for any order to be effective.

In 2012, class counsel proposed that all three supervisory judges sit together in one location to hear submissions on parallel motions. The Attorneys General of Ontario, British Columbia and Québec all objected to the judges sitting outside the territorial boundaries of their province. Class counsel then sought directions from the courts in all three provinces.

In Ontario, former Chief Justice Winkler held that an Ontario Superior Court judge may preside over a hearing that is conducted outside Ontario in circumstances where it promotes the interests of justice (see Parsons v. Canadian Red Cross Society).

Chief Justice Winkler's Decision was "Final"

Even though none of the parties contested the matter, the Court of Appeal first had to be satisfied that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Ontario Class Proceedings Act does not specify the Court to bring an appeal from an order made on a motion for directions brought pursuant to the terms of a court-approved settlement agreement. As such, the Courts of Justice Act ("CJA") had to be analyzed. Section 6(1) of the CJA grants the Court of Appeal appellate jurisdiction over final orders of the Superior Court unless the appeal lies to the Divisional Court under another Act. The Divisional Court, on the other hand, has jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals.

Justice LaForme (with whom Justice Lauwers agreed on this point) held that the order under appeal was "final". He held that the fact that the underlying class actions had been resolved by the settlement agreement required that he take a "somewhat modified" approach to the classic test for distinguishing between a final or interlocutory order. He stated that class counsel's request was akin to an application under Rule 14.05(3)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, to determine legal rights. In his view, Chief Justice Winkler:

[51] ... disposed of the motion on the merits by granting declaratory relief in a form that was consistent with the moving party's position. Thus, in my view, the order is final for the same reason that an order resolving a Rule 14 application is final even though another, quite possibly larger, issue between the parties remains to be determined.

Justice LaForme was nonetheless cautious to note that his decision was narrow:

[53] It is important to note that this decision does not stand for the proposition that any appeal from an order of a supervisory judge under a national class action settlement agreement will come directly to this court. The order's final or interlocutory character will turn on the specific order of the supervisory judge acting under a settlement agreement within the discrete context of post-settlement litigation.

Justice Juriansz disagreed, holding that the order under appeal was interlocutory. He turned to Hendrickson v. Kallio, the leading precedent for determining whether an order is final or interlocutory. Hendrickson holds that an interlocutory order "does not determine the real matter in dispute between the is interlocutory if the merits of the case remain to be determined." Justice Juriansz therefore concluded that Chief Justice Winkler had made an interlocutory order.

Justice Juriansz distinguished case law establishing that orders dismissing challenges to the Superior Court's jurisdiction over a proceeding based on an alleged lack of jurisdiction are final orders. In those cases, the order has the effect of depriving a party of a substantive defence while the "order in this case does not affect any claims or defences of the parties and has no effect on the merits of any litigation whatsoever" (para. 195).

Justice Juriansz rejected Justice LaForme's "different and novel" approach to this question in circumstances where the action has been settled and no claims or defences remain to the tried. He specifically rejected the analogy to an application seeking the determination of rights that depend on the interpretation of a statute or regulation. Notably, the motion for directions before Chief Justice Winkler was not a freestanding application but was connected to a specific and pending dispute. The connection to that dispute permeated his decision. In sum:

[204] the "real matter in dispute between the parties" under the Hendrickson test was whether the court should extend the deadline for filing first claims. The decision on the motion for directions left the merits of that matter to be determined. The decision simply determined the issue of where the court could sit to hear the real matter in dispute.

In any event, Justice Juriansz observed that the issue on the motion for directions could not be heard in a Rule 14.05(3)(d) application (the basis for Justice LaForme's application analogy). This distinguished the case from Fontaine v. Canada, which involved an appeal from a motion related to the implementation of a class action settlement.

Ultimately, Justice Juriansz found no reason to depart from the Hendrickson test because the action has been resolved. Rather, "the focus of the inquiry will simply shift to the real issue in dispute between the parties and to whether the order under appeal finally determined that issue. ... I fear that abandoning the traditional test in favour of a modified approach will lead to greater uncertainty in an already unwieldy area of jurisprudence."

Given that he was dissenting on this issue, however, Justice Juriansz proceeded to consider the merits of the issues.


The appeal was technically "moot" as the underlying motions had all been heard and decided. In the circumstances, however, the Court of Appeal unanimously held that it was appropriate to decide the appeal as it addressed an issue of importance that was likely to arise again and there was a social cost to leaving it unresolved.

In Justice LaForme's view:

[56] ... This case, in my view, raises an issue that should be resolved because of its national importance and the continuing social cost of leaving it unsettled: see Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General) [...]. Specifically, it is important to resolve whether a superior court judge has the option of sitting outside his or her home province to facilitate the implementation and enforcement of a national class settlement. The failure to resolve this important question may hinder the administration of national class action settlements such as this one, which are an important vehicle for promoting access to justice, judicial economy and behavior modification.

The Merits

On the merits, Justice Lauwers agreed with Justice Juriansz that the "open court principle" and s. 135(1) of Ontario's Courts of Justice Act require a video link to an Ontario courtroom if the Superior Court is to sit outside of Ontario.

Justice LaForme disagreed, and would have upheld Chief Justice Winkler's order in its entirety. He emphasized that Chief Justice Winkler's decision in this respect was owed deference by the Court of Appeal:

[154] ... "[A discretionary decision in a class proceeding] may only be set aside if it is based on an error of law, a palpable and overriding error of fact, the consideration of irrelevant factors or the omission of factors that ought to have been considered, or if the decision was unreasonable": 1250264 Ontario Inc. v. Pet Valu Canada Inc., 2013 ONCA 279, 115 O.R. (3d) 653, at para. 40."


Litigants should be cognizant of appellate jurisdiction in Ontario class proceedings, noting that this remains a still uncertain area of the law in some respects. Whether the Court of Appeal or Divisional Court will have jurisdiction over a particular matter will very much depend on the facts of a particular case.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions