Interlocutory or final

For appeal purposes it is often necessary to determine if an order is interlocutory or final.

Sometimes that's easy.

A judgment after trial is final.

Usually a decision on a motion (other than for judgment) is interlocutory.

But sometimes the answer is elusive.

The question is "does the decision finally dispose of an issue at trial?". The test is not easy to apply -- so, if on a pleadings motion a judge decides that a claim, for example, is unknown at law the decision is final. But if the judge decides the claim may be known to law, and so can be pleaded, the decision is interlocutory. An order granting summary judgment is final -- an order dismissing summary judgment is interlocutory.

The cases sometimes remind one of discussions of holy books by learned scholars. There is wisdom there but it's hard to get a grip on!

In any event, the Court of Appeal released today a family law case Wong v. Gong, 2010 ONCA 25 where the Court held:

[2] The order of Wilson J. is (a) a temporary order and (b) does not decide a claim in the application: Family Law Rule 2(1). It is an interlocutory order under the general jurisprudence as well because it does not finally determine an issue in dispute between the parties or deprive Mr. Wong of any substantive right or possible defence. See Mantella v. Mantella, 2009 CarswellOnt 1060, 2009 ONCA 194.
...

[4] Wilson J.'s decision was simply to the effect that the set off argument was not accepted as a basis to prevent payment of the monies in court, which was the interlocutory matter before her. In directing payment out she made it clear that the ultimate determination of arrears remained open and that "a component" of the amounts paid out pursuant to her order "may be for future support" if the appellant turns out to be successful in his argument that the outstanding arrears were in the amount that he claimed.