It is preferable and more efficient for appeals to await the completion of proceedings in the trial court so that a complete record and disposition is presented on appeal

Sabourin and Sun Group of Companies v. Laiken, 2011 ONCA 757 deals with the general prohibition on allowing appeals until a final decision is made – that is appeal on decisions made during a trial or hearing ought to be rolled up with all other appeals related to the trial or hearing. (Having said that, once liability is decided the time to appeal starts running evening, for example, costs or other ancillary matters remain outstanding). The Court writes:

[7] In my view, it would be premature to grant a stay at this point in the contempt proceedings. A stay would interrupt the Superior Court proceedings and run a serious risk of fragmenting any appeals to this court. If the appeal from the contempt finding were to succeed, that would end the matter, but if it failed, the appellant would still have a right of appeal from any sanction the motion judge imposed. Appeals that interrupt a proceeding and risk a fragmented appeal are almost invariably discouraged. It is almost always preferable and more efficient for appeals to await the completion of proceedings in the trial court so that a complete record and disposition is presented on appeal: see, e.g. Laudon v. Roberts, 2009 ONCA 383, 308 D.L.R. (4^th) 422, at para. 25: “The time-honoured practice of reserving to the conclusion of trial the appeal of various rulings made during the proceedings is sound in that it preserves court time and costs.”

[8] The appellant cites Bell ExpressVu Ltd. Partnership v. Torroni, 2009 ONCA 85, 304 D.L.R. (4^th) 431, as a case where this court appears to have entertained an appeal from a finding of contempt before the sanction was imposed: see para. 19. However, as I read that case, the court entertained the appeal without any consideration of the point at issue here. Accordingly, I do not view Bell ExpressVu as authority to depart from the established rule against hearing appeals on a piecemeal basis or as authority for the proposition that appeals from contempt findings should ordinarily be heard before the sanction has been imposed.