Appeals - Leave to Appeal - R62.02 Interlocutory LeaveThe Rules of Civil Procedure has two main sets of leave to appeal procedures, the main one under R61 [R61.03 (Divisional Court) and 61.03.1 (Court of appeal)], and another - less frequent - under R62.02 (Interlocutory Orders). This page about the latter.
. Justice for Children and Youth v. J.G.
In Justice for Children and Youth v. J.G. (Div Ct, 2020) the Divisional Court considered whether leave to appeal should be granted, if the order was interlocutory:
 In any event, if we had concluded that the order was interlocutory, we would have granted leave to appeal pursuant to the test in Rule 62.02(4)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. There is good reason to doubt the correctness of the order and the underlying issue – the right of a child to consult with counsel – is of general importance. It is for this reason that we do not accept counsel for the father’s argument that leave should not be granted given this Court’s recent decision in Lokhandwala v. Khan. In that case, this court stated:
Under either branch of the test under R.60.02(04) [SS: should be R62.02(4)], the moving party must show an issue that rises beyond the interim interests of the particular litigants: for example, are there questions of broad significance or of general application that warrant resolution by a higher court because they affect the development of the law and the administration of justice: Ash v. Lloyd’s Corp. (1992), 1992 CanLII 7652 (ON SC), 8 OR (3d) 282 (Gen. Div.); Greslik v. Ontario Legal Aid Plan (1988), 1988 CanLII 4842 (ON SC), 65 OR (2d) 110 (Div. Ct.). Further, even where there is an issue of “importance”, leave will still not usually be granted where that issue will still be available for appellate adjudication after trial: Silver v. Imax (2011) ONSC 19035, paras. 46 and 55. The issue on this appeal is of broad significance in that it affects the administration of justice. Depriving a young person of the ability to seek and receive legal advice from a lawyer is a profound derogation from that young person’s rights.