Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Central issue concerns whether the Divisional Court should grant leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of a Superior Court judge (Papageorgiou J.) declining to schedule appeals from Associate Justices’ interlocutory orders.
• Jurisdictional questions arise over which court (single Superior Court judge vs. Divisional Court) has authority to hear appeals from Associate Justices’ interlocutory decisions.
• Procedural fairness and case management are engaged by the panel’s direction that motion materials be properly available in Case Centre and parties cooperate with such administrative requests.
• The characterization of the moving party’s request to “set aside” a prior decision is treated as, in substance, a motion for leave to appeal rather than a direct appeal as of right.
• Access to further appellate review is limited, as the Divisional Court confirms there are no further appeal proceedings available in respect of the four Associate Justices’ decisions.
• No evidentiary controversy or factual record disputes are analyzed in the endorsement; the focus remains on appeal routes and leave-to-appeal principles.

Background and procedural history

The case of Latif v. Kwinter arises from a series of interlocutory decisions made in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The moving party, Nematullah Latif, brought a motion before the Divisional Court in which he asked the court to “set aside” a prior decision of Justice Papageorgiou dated July 22, 2025. That earlier decision was interlocutory in nature and concerned the handling of proposed appeals from interlocutory decisions of Associate Justices. In particular, Justice Papageorgiou had declined to schedule appeals from four decisions of Associate Justices, on the basis that such matters fell within the jurisdiction of a single judge of the Superior Court of Justice rather than the Divisional Court. In addition to challenging Justice Papageorgiou’s interlocutory ruling, Mr. Latif sought leave in the Divisional Court to appeal the four underlying Associate Justices’ decisions themselves. Thus, by the time the matter came before the three-judge panel of the Divisional Court (Corbett, Faieta and LeMay JJ.), the case had become a procedural contest about the proper route of appeal and the availability of further appellate review, rather than a direct determination of the substantive dispute between Mr. Latif and the responding parties, Alfred M. Kwinter et al. The endorsement does not describe the underlying facts of the original lawsuit or the substantive legal claims being litigated between the parties; the focus is exclusively on appellate procedure and jurisdiction.

Case management and filing of materials

A preliminary issue arose when the Divisional Court panel initially attempted to review the motion but found that none of the moving party’s materials had been uploaded to the Case Centre system. At the panel’s direction, the Registrar contacted Mr. Latif and asked him to ensure his materials were available in Case Centre. Mr. Latif responded expressing concern, explaining that he had previously provided his materials to the court and that a case management judge had endorsed that they had been filed. The Divisional Court clarified in its endorsement that, as a matter of ordinary court operations, it is not unusual that filed materials may not reach the particular panel assigned to hear a matter. In such circumstances, it is for the panel to address the problem and, where necessary, to seek the parties’ cooperation to ensure that all required materials are available. The court emphasized that parties are expected to cooperate with such requests so that the panel can obtain the full record before rendering a decision. In this case, once the court heard from Mr. Latif, staff were directed to make the motion materials available in Case Centre, and the panel then reviewed those motion materials before issuing its ruling. There is no indication that the temporary issue with access to the electronic record had any substantive impact on the court’s assessment of the merits of the motion.

Nature of the motion and jurisdictional issues

The moving party framed his request as one to “set aside” the July 22, 2025 decision of Justice Papageorgiou. However, the Divisional Court identified that Justice Papageorgiou’s decision was interlocutory because it dealt with the scheduling and handling of appeals from interlocutory decisions of Associate Justices rather than finally resolving the underlying dispute. Interlocutory decisions of a Superior Court judge are not generally appealable to the Divisional Court as of right; instead, leave to appeal is required. Recognizing this, the panel did not dismiss the motion outright as misconceived, but instead treated it as, in substance, a motion for leave to appeal from Justice Papageorgiou’s interlocutory decision. The jurisdictional structure of the Superior Court and Divisional Court played a central role in the outcome. Justice Papageorgiou had previously determined that appeals from the four Associate Justices’ interlocutory decisions lay to a single judge of the Superior Court of Justice rather than the Divisional Court, and that those matters had effectively been disposed of. The Divisional Court accepted that assessment and reiterated that the proposed appeals from the Associate Justices’ decisions were within the jurisdiction of a single Superior Court judge, not the Divisional Court. As a result, the Divisional Court concluded that there were no further appeal proceedings available in respect of those four Associate Justices’ decisions.

Absence of policy terms or substantive merits discussion

The endorsement does not contain any discussion of insurance policy terms, contractual clauses, or other substantive policy language. It provides no detail as to the nature of the original claim (for example, whether it involved insurance coverage, professional negligence, personal injury, or any other area of substantive law), nor does it identify specific contractual or statutory provisions in dispute. Instead, the decision is confined to procedural and appellate topics: how interlocutory decisions are appealed, which court has jurisdiction over those appeals, and under what circumstances leave to appeal is granted or refused. Consequently, there are no policy clauses or substantive contractual terms that can be analyzed or compared; the case, in the form of the decisions available, is best understood as a study in appellate process and the limits of further review rather than a substantive judgment on the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute.

Outcome of the motion and consequences for the parties

Having characterized the moving party’s request as a motion for leave to appeal, the Divisional Court refused leave. The panel expressly stated that leave to appeal Justice Papageorgiou’s decision of July 22, 2025 is denied. The court further noted, for the benefit of the moving party, that it does not provide reasons when granting or denying leave to appeal, and therefore did not elaborate on the substantive criteria underlying its refusal. In the same endorsement, the court addressed Mr. Latif’s request for leave to appeal the four Associate Justices’ decisions. It held that those proposed appeals fell within the jurisdiction of a single judge of the Superior Court of Justice and that they had already been dealt with in Justice Papageorgiou’s earlier decision. On that basis, the Divisional Court confirmed that there are no further appeal proceedings available in respect of those four Associate Justices’ decisions. The result is that the procedural path Mr. Latif sought to pursue is definitively closed at the Divisional Court level. On the question of costs, the Divisional Court ordered that the motion for leave to appeal is dismissed “without costs.” No damages or other monetary relief were awarded in the endorsement, and there is no indication of any separate costs order or monetary award being made in these decisions. Accordingly, the successful parties in these proceedings are the responding parties, Alfred M. Kwinter et al., and the total amount ordered in their favour in the decisions presently available is $0, with no costs, damages, or other monetary sums awarded.