they later withdrew that objection because they believed that
the order permitting the respondent to amend its statements of
claim is final and gives rise to a claim of res judicata or issue
estoppel on the question forming the subject matter of the appellants’ appeal. The respondent therefore did not raise jurisdiction
as an issue in its factum filed on the appeal.
 Following colloquy with the panel at the appeal hearing,
the respondent’s counsel withdrew their assertion that the question forming the subject matter of the appeal is subject to
a claim of res judicata or issue estoppel.
 We reject the appellants’ submission that the order under
appeal is a final order for three reasons.
 First, none of the notice of motion, the motion judge’s reasons or the formal order delineates the precise legal issue the
appellants say has been determined. As we have explained,
the appellants did not rely on rule 21.01(1)(a) in their notice of
motion and the formal order simply dismisses the motion to
strike. Although the motion judge’s reasons contain certain findings, the reasons do not include a disposition section in which
the motion judge formally invokes rule 21.01(1)(a) and purports
to determine a question of law.
 While not necessarily determinative, in general, the content of a formal order is “integral” to determining whether the
order is final or interlocutory: Ashak v. Ontario (Director, Family
Responsibility Office) (2013), 115 O.R. (3d) 401,  O.J. No.
2573, 2013 ONCA 375, at para. 13. Moreover, it is trite law that
an appeal lies from the formal order, not the underlying reasons:
Grand River Enterprises v. Burnham,  O.J. No. 952, 197
O.A.C. 168 (C.A.), at para. 10.
 In this case, the notice of motion to strike invoked
only rule 21.01(1)(b) and the formal order simply dismisses the
motion. On the face of these documents, the order under appeal
is interlocutory: S. (R.) v. H. (R.) (2000), 52 O.R. (3d) 152, 
O.J. No. 4843 (C.A.).
 Moreover, even accepting that the appellants’ motion
could proceed under rule 21.01(1)(a) for a determination that the
limitation period for the unjust enrichment claims had expired,
it does not follow that dismissal of the appellants’ motion results
in a binding determination that the limitation period had not
 Rather, this court will look to the formal order and the
underlying reasons to assess whether the order is final or interlocutory. For example, in Ball, in holding that an order dismissing