Civil Appeals in Ontario: How the Interlocutory/Final Distinction Became So Complicated and the Case for a Simple Solution?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Interlocutory appeals have the clear potential to distort access to justice, by causing unnecessary expense and delay, two prime impediments to access to justice. As such, Ontario law: a) imposes a leave requirement for interlocutory appeals; and b) legislates that interlocutory appeals be generally brought in the Divisional Court while final appeals are generally brought in the Court of Appeal. At the same time, appeals, including interlocutory appeals, play an indispensable role in achieving justice in particular cases, righting clear wrongs. Moreover, the clarity in the law brought by appeals can help the pursuit of justice in numerous other cases. But determining whether an appeal is interlocutory or final has been the source of much controversy. Coulter Osborne addressed this in the Osborne Report but his recommendations have not yet been incorporated in legislation as recommended, despite requests for this by the judiciary. This article, scheduled for publication in the Queen's Law Journal later this Spring, begins with Part I’s explanation of the purposes of appeals, the history of the interlocutory/final distinction, the legislation and case law governing appellate jurisdiction in Ontario, and the relationship between appeals and access to justice. Part II gives the methodology for analyzing all cases from 2010-2017 in the Divisional Court and Court of Appeal where there was dispute over the interlocutory/final distinction. Part III analyzes these figures, in terms of numbers, results, remedies, costs, delay, clarity of the law, and differences between the Court of Appeal and Divisional Court. These results are not encouraging from an access to justice perspective, with dozens of cases each year analyzing this issue. Part IV suggests that the distinction between interlocutory and final appeals, including the leave requirement for the former, should remain. It is nonetheless suggested that this situation could be improved through simplifying the test for distinguishing interlocutory from final appeals. The experiences of England and Wales and especially British Columbia, both of which have sought to address this issue through legislation, demonstrate that this is a project worth considering. A review of British Columbia case law pre- and post-legislative amendments is a key component of this analysis. A simplification of appellate jurisdiction in terms of merging the Divisional Court and Court of Appeal is a less certain solution but also warrants consideration.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».