In its decision in Law Society of Upper Canada v. Kivisto,
2016 ONSC 1400 the Ontario Divisional Court explained that because
of the differences between a regulatory proceeding and a civil
proceeding, the distinction between final and interlocutory orders
will vary in these two contexts. The Court also confirmed that
the distinction between final and interlocutory orders has a
different dimension when the appeal is from an appellate decision
rather than a decision of first instance.
In this case, the Divisional Court considered the Law Society of
Upper Canada's motion to dismiss Mr. Kivisto's notice of
appeal from an order of the Law Society Appeal Division. Section
49.38 of the Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.L.8 provides
that an appeal lies to the Ontario Divisional Court from a final
decision or order of the Law Society of Upper Canada Appeal Panel.
At the outset of its decision, the Court relied on Opara v. Law
Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONSC 3348 (Div. Ct.) to briefly
confirm that the distinction between final and interlocutory orders
has a different dimension when the appeal is from an appellate
decision rather than a decision of first instance.
Ultimately, the Court ruled that the Appeal Panel's decision
was not a final decision for two reasons. First, the Appeal
Panel's decision did not deprive Mr. Kivisto of a substantive
right that could determine the entire proceeding. Based on the
Court's review of the applicable case law, this meant that and
the decision was therefore not a "final" decision.
Second, the Court went on to state that even if its interpretation
of the jurisprudence was incorrect, the case law it had reviewed
regarding the distinction between final and interlocutory orders
arose pursuant to s. 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c.43. The Court went on to note that a "civil
proceeding, however, is quite different than a regulatory
proceeding and specifically a conduct application under the
Act." The Court concluded that "final" decision
under the Act meant determination of professional misconduct or, in
this case, a determination of conduct unbecoming. As the Appeal
Panel's decision was not a final determination on this issue,
it was not a final decision within the meaning of the Act and there
was therefore no right of appeal to the Divisional Court.
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.
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
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).