Final/Interlocutory -- The BC Approach

Today's British Columbia Court of Appeal decision in Yaremy v. Insurance Corporation of British Colombia, 2008 BCCA 235 asks whether leave is required to appeal an as yet unentered order dismissing an application to have an action dismissed on the ground that it is time-barred.

In considering the question the Court set out the British Columbia approach to the final/interlocutory dichotomy. The British Columbia approach is very different than the Ontario approach.

In British Columbia an order is final when it disposes of all rights of a party: Hayes Forest Services Limited v. Weyerhaeuser Company Limited, 2008 BCCA 120 (CanLII), 2008 BCCA 120.

Of course, in Ontario the rule is that an order is final if it disposes of a single substantive issue between the parties: see Capital Gains Income Streams Corporation v. Merrill Lynch Canada Inc., 2007 ONCA 497 for example.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal today writes:

... The question of whether an order (i.e., judgment) is final or interlocutory has been the subject of extensive judicial consideration. Recently, this subject was canvassed in detail in Hayes Forest Services Limited v. Weyerhaeuser Company Limited, 2008 BCCA 120 (CanLII), 2008 BCCA 120.

[8] In Hayes, Mr. Justice Smith reaffirmed this Court's commitment to what is known as the order approach. Under this approach, an order is final and, therefore, appealable as of right, only if it disposes of all of the rights of the parties to the litigation. If matters remain outstanding in the litigation after the making of the order sought to be appealed, then that order is interlocutory: paras. 15, 45, 50.
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4