Source: http://www.isthatlegal.ca/index.php?name=417-case-law
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:21:22+00:00

Document:
In Ball v. Donais (1993), 1993 CanLII 8613 (ON CA), 13 O.R. (3d) 322 (C.A.), this court added a gloss to the distinction drawn in Hendrickson between a final and an interlocutory order. The court held that an order that does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties, but that finally disposes of an issue raised by a defence, and thereby deprives the defendant of a substantive right that could be determinative of the entire action (such as a statutory limitation period defence), is a final order.
 The Hendrickson distinction between final and interlocutory orders was further refined in Buck Brothers Ltd. v. Frontenac Builders Ltd. (1994), 1994 CanLII 2403 (ON CA), 19 O.R. (3d) 97 (C.A.). In that case, Morden A.C.J.O. held that an order disposing of an application under r. 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, is a final order because it ends the particular proceeding before the court. This is so even if the order in question does not finally resolve the entire dispute between the parties. The critical question is whether the order resolves the matter in dispute in the application, and not some other proceeding that may be ongoing.
 An interlocutory motion may produce an order that is either final or interlocutory. Moreover, different motions can result in either a final or an interlocutory order.
 It may be fair to say that this court’s decisions relating to whether dispositions of motions seeking a contempt order are final or interlocutory are not a model of clarity. However, in my view, the order under appeal is a final order. I come to this conclusion based on the following review of this court’s decisions on this issue.
 For context, I start with motions in which the court has found a party to be in contempt of court.
 In Bush v. Mereshensky, 2007 ONCA 679 (CanLII), 229 O.A.C. 200, at para. 10, this court indicated that it had “consistently held that a finding of contempt is a final order.” Bush has since been relied upon for the principle that a finding of contempt is considered to be a final order (see Mantella v. Mantella, 2009 ONCA 194 (CanLII), 246 O.A.C. 386, at para. 17; Leeming v. Leeming, 2016 ONSC 1835 (CanLII), 2016 ONSC 1835 (Div. Ct.), at para. 16).
 I now turn to orders, such as the one under appeal, in which the motion for contempt has been dismissed.
 In International Beverage Dispensers’ Union, Local 280 v. Kilgoran Hotels Ltd.,  O.J. No. 389 (C.A.), a grievor, who had been fired from his job, obtained judgment from the arbitration board ordering his reinstatement to his prior position. The respondent hotel refused to reinstate him to that position. The appellant union’s motion for an order finding the respondent in contempt was unsuccessful. The respondent appealed to this court. The question arose as to whether the order under appeal was final or interlocutory.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.