The Ontario Court of Appeal in Mardonet v. BPO
Canada LLP determined that a motions judge's order
quashing a summons to a party is interlocutory, even if the summons
is issued for a motion in which the party is not involved.
In Mardonet, the plaintiff sued the appellants to
recover funds that were allegedly misappropriated and alleged that
the moving parties were negligent in conducting audits and failing
to detect the misappropriation of funds. The plaintiff moved for a
Mareva injunction against the appellants, who in turn
served notices of examination against the moving parties. The
notices of examination were quashed by a motions judge.
While the moving parties submitted that the order under appeal
was interlocutory, the appellants submitted it was final. Relying
on Smerchanski v. Lewis, which held that
an order quashing a summons to a non-party was final because it
finally disposed of the rights of both the non-party and the party
who issued the summons, the appellants submitted that the moving
parties were the effective equivalent of non-parties.
The Court of Appeal disagreed with the appellants, finding that
since the moving parties are parties to the action the order is
 We conclude
that the order under appeal is interlocutory and that the appeal
must be quashed. The key factor in this court's decision in
Smerchanski was that the summons was issued to a
non-party. That is not this case. The moving parties are parties to
the action. The reasoning in Smerchanski does not apply.
The order under appeal does not finally determine whether the
moving parties can be examined in the action.
 Further, the
fact that the motion judge's decision may finally determine
whether the moving parties can be examined in relation to the
Mareva injunction does not make the motion judge's
order final. The motion judge's order does not terminate the
underlying action or resolve a substantive claim or defence of one
of the parties. To hold that the motion judge's order is final
because it determines whether parties to an action can be examined
in relation to an interlocutory motion would effectively eliminate
the distinction between interlocutory and final orders: see
Waldman v. Thomson Reuters Canada Limited, 2015 ONCA 53
(CanLII),  O.J. 395, at para 22.
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 Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
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).