|
Family - Appeal Route (2). Newton v. Grillo
In Newton v. Grillo (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal considers a family court appeal route issue:[2] Ms. Grillo’s appeal is from the trial judge’s June 16, 2025 order made in the Hamilton Family Court which, as the order indicates on its face, was made only under provincial family law legislation. As such, Ms. Grillo’s appeal lies to the Divisional Court pursuant to s. 19(1)(a.1) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 (the “CJA”). Pursuant to s. 6(1)(b)(i) of the CJA, this court has no jurisdiction to hear her appeal.
[3] Ms. Grillo argues that Mr. Newton’s trial submissions referred to principles under federal legislation, namely, the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), and that his delay in raising the jurisdictional issue before this court until after the appeal was perfected should defeat his motion to quash. Neither argument confers jurisdiction on this court to hear the appeal.
[4] First, the appeal is from the June 16, 2025 order and no part of that order is made under the Divorce Act; submissions made by way of analogy to principles underlying the Divorce Act do not form part of the order under appeal. In any event, the parties were not married, so the Divorce Act has no application. Second, any delay in raising the jurisdictional issue does not affect the question of jurisdiction – either this court has jurisdiction, or it does not, regardless of when the issue is raised. . Porter v. Kik
In Porter v. Kik (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal considered an appeal route in family law, here where the issue involved the Executive Legal Officer of this court:[1] An order was made by a judge of the Family Court under only the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99. The order was appealed to this court. However, pursuant to s. 19(1)(a.1) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C 43 (the “CJA”), the appeal properly lay to the Divisional Court. Consequently, the appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.
....
[6] By letter to counsel for both parties dated May 28, 2025, the office of the Executive Legal Officer of this court alerted the appellant to the potential application of s. 19(1)(a.1) of the CJA and the possibility that the appeal might fall within the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court. Section 19(1)(a.1) reads as follows:19 (1) An appeal lies to the Divisional Court from,
....
(a.1) a final order of a judge of the Family Court made only under a provision of an Act or regulation of Ontario; ....
[10] Pursuant to s. 19(1)(a.1) of the CJA, an appeal lies to the Divisional Court from a final order of a judge of the Family Court made only under a provision of an Act or regulation of Ontario. The December 2024 Order was made at the Kitchener Superior Court of Justice, by a judge of the Family Court, and it was made pursuant to provincial legislation only, namely, the Family Law Rules. Clearly, s. 19(1)(a.1) governed and the appeal lay to the Divisional Court, not to this court.
[11] I would observe the following. In a situation such as that which occurred here, there are two options which could move the matter along, rather than allowing it to languish. First, if the parties agree that the appeal should be transferred to the Divisional Court, they can file a consent order in this court, without the necessity of personal attendance, and if appropriate, the order will be issued by a judge of this court. Second, it would be open to a respondent to bring a motion in this court to quash the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Such a motion would be scheduled to be heard at an early date: see s. 7.2.5 of the “Practice Direction Concerning Civil Appeals at the Court of Appeal for Ontario” (March 1, 2017). . Lan v. Liao
In Lan v. Liao (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court considered a family law appeal route issue, and a related issue of CJA s.110 court transfer:[22] Section 19 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 43, sets out the appellate jurisdiction of the Divisional Court. It provides:19 (1) An appeal lies to the Divisional Court from,
(a) a final order of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice, as described in subsections (1.1) and (1.2);
(a.1) a final order of a judge of the Family Court made only under a provision of an Act or regulation of Ontario;
(b) an interlocutory order of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice, with leave as provided in the rules of court;
(c) a final order of a master, case management master or associate judge. [23] The decision of Jarvis J. was a final order. Subsection 19 (1.2), which applies to notices of appeal filed on or after October 1, 2007, limits the appellate jurisdiction of the Divisional Court to single payments of not more than $50,000. In this case, the equalization payment ordered is $452,000.
[24] Subsection 19(a.1) applies to “a final order of a judge of the Family Court made only under a provision of an Act or regulation of Ontario”. Justice Jarvis’ order states that it is made under both the Divorce Act and the Family Law Act. The appeal of the Respondent husband relates to decisions made pursuant to both of these Acts.
[25] Since the appeal is not within the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court, it is within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal: Courts of Justice Act, s. 6(1)(b).
[26] Pursuant to s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act, this Court has the discretion to transfer this appeal to the Court of Appeal. In exercising its discretion under this section, the Court considers the merits of the appeal, the prejudice to the respondent from further delay and whether the appellant moved expeditiously once it was known that jurisdiction was being disputed: Schwilgin v. Szivy, 2015 ONSC 4292, at para. 5.
[27] Since the appellants have already filed Notices of Appeal with the Court of Appeal “on a protective basis” and brought motions for an extension of time in that Court, there is no purpose to my exercising my discretion to transfer the appeal to the Court of Appeal.
[28] The appeals to the Divisional Court are dismissed, without prejudice to the Appellants proceeding in the Court of Appeal. . Agha v. Fatima
In Agha v. Fatima (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a family law appeal under r.2.1 'Frivolous, Vexatious and Abusive Proceedings', this brought against various judicial directions.
Here the court considers CJA s.19(1) appeal routes:[2] The appellant husband seeks to appeal the December 17, 2024 order of Kraft J. following a family law trial. The trial addressed a range of issues, including child support, spousal support, whether an equalization payment was owing, post-separation adjustments, whether the husband’s interest in the matrimonial home should be transferred or vested in the wife’s name, and whether to make a restraining order against the husband. Kraft J.’s order was made in the context of a divorce application. She expressly made her support orders under the Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.).
....
[10] In this case, it is evident that the court does not have jurisdiction over the appeal. The appellant relies on s. 19(1)(a) of the CJA, which states that an appeal lies to the Divisional Court from a final order of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice, as described in subsections (1.1) and (1.2). Only subsection (1.2) could apply here, because the notice of appeal was filed after October 1, 2007. Subsection (1.2) limits the court’s jurisdiction to appeals from final orders for a single payment of not more than $50,000 or periodic payments of not more than $50,000. The payments Kraft J. ordered total more than $50,000.
[11] The appellant has also cited s. 19(1)(a.1) of the CJA, although he says this provision grants jurisdiction over appeals from interlocutory orders. Paragraph 19(1)(a.1) states an appeal lies to the Divisional Court from a final order of a judge of the Family Court made only under a provision of an Act or regulation of Ontario. This provision does not apply because Kraft J. is not a judge of the Family Court. Kraft J. sits, and the trial was heard, in Toronto. Under s. 21.1(5) of the CJA, Toronto is not an area in which the Family Court has jurisdiction. In addition, Kraft J.’s order was made under the Divorce Act, which is a federal statute. Her order therefore does not comply with the requirement in s. 19(1)(a.1) that it be made only under a provision of an act or regulation of Ontario.
[12] To the extent the appellant intended to rely on s. 19(1)(b) of the CJA, that provision does not apply because it grants the Divisional Court jurisdiction over appeals from interlocutory orders, with leave. Kraft J.’s order was not interlocutory.
|
