Federal Court - Interlocutory versus Final Orders. National Benefit Authority Corporation v. Canada
In National Benefit Authority Corporation v. Canada (Fed CA, 2022) the Federal Court of Appeal considered the issue of final versus interlocutory orders, but here in the federal court system context:
 The general legal principles to be applied when determining whether an order is interlocutory or final for purposes of section 27 are set out in the decision of this Court in Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters v. Alderville Indian Band, 2014 FCA 145, 461 N.R. 327, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, 36035 (12 March 2015) (Alderville). One of the issues in Alderville was whether a proposed intervener (Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters) was in time to appeal to this Court from a decision of the Federal Court that denied the Federation’s request for intervener status. This turned on whether the Federal Court’s order was interlocutory or final. Although this context is quite different from the context in which this appeal arises, the Court in Alderville provided helpful general principles that are applicable here.
 In Alderville (at paras. 21-22), Justice Stratas parsed the definition of "“final judgment”" in s. 2(1) and determined that to be a final judgment, the order would have to determine "“in whole or in part any substantive right of any of the parties”" in "“any judicial proceeding”". He concluded that the term "“proceeding”" as used throughout the FC Act means the "“matter before the Court – such as an appeal or application – and not a component of the matter, such as a motion.”"
 Finally, the appellant submits that this Court has jurisdiction as a result of s. 27(4) of the FC Act. It provides:
"27. (4) For the purposes of this section, a final judgment includes a judgment that determines a substantive right except as to any question to be determined by a referee pursuant to the judgment. "