| Abstrakt: |
In this article, the author argues that while the impacts of interlocutory appeals can be just as significant as final appeals to concerned parties, access to justice is more likely to be impeded when appeals are heard on interlocutory issues. This issue is compounded due to a lack of clarity over whether an appeal is interlocutory or final. To clarify this uncertain area of law, the author analyzes 119 decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario and 30 decisions of the Divisional Court in which a dispute arose regarding the interlocutory/final distinction. The author discovers that, in the majority of these cases, the court held that the appeal was interlocutory and the appeal was quashed. For all parties, the result was unnecessary cost and delay. The author argues that while these costs and delays were lower than expected, the sheer number of cases where the finality of the appeal was at issue suggests that uncertainty in the law creates needless litigation and indicates that change is needed. The author makes several suggestions for reform. First, the leave requirement for appeals could be eliminated. Second, the leave requirement could be applied evenly to all appeals. Drawing on the models adopted in England and Wales and in British Columbia, where a clear definition of a "final" appeal was created, the author suggests that Ontario should also create an explicit guideline for whether an appeal is interlocutory or final. The British Columbia model is drawn on through the analysis of 105 British Columbia decisions highlighting the impact of the legislative change in 2012 when the new model was adopted. Third, the author suggests eliminating the Divisional Court altogether and instead having a single court of appeal that hears all appeals in a given case, regardless of whether they are interlocutory or final in nature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
