William Brock and Maureen Littlejohn, for moving party.
Michael Mazzuca, for responding party.
 BY THE COURT: — The respondents move to quash this
appeal from the dismissal of a motion for an interlocutory
 In our view, the motion must be granted as the order is
interlocutory in nature and, therefore, the appeal is not within
the jurisdiction of this court: Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990,
c. C.43, ss. 6(1)(b) and 19(1)(b).
 It is well established that the characterization of an order
as being final interlocutory depends upon its legal nature rather
than its practical effect. Accordingly, even where the practical
effect of refusing an interlocutory injunction may from a practical perspective effectively end some aspect of the litigation,
the legal nature of such an order remains interlocutory for the
purposes of appeal: see Ontario Medical Assn. v. Miller (1976),
14 O.R. (2d) 468,  O.J. No. 2336 (C.A.).
 The request for a mandatory injunction to search and
obtain documents was made within this action and the order
dismissing that request is also interlocutory in nature for the
purposes of appeal.
 The appellants express concern that the reasons of the
motion judge determine the issue of confidentiality. We do not
accept that submission. The reasons reflect a decision on the
state of the record at the stage of the interlocutory injunction
and do not conclusively determine the issue which remains
open for trial.
 Accordingly, the appeal is quashed.
 Costs to the moving party fixed at $5,000, inclusive of
taxes and disbursements.