|
Appeals - Resolving Multiple Appeal Jurisdictions (2). Royal Bank of Canada v. 1512632 Ontario Inc. (Cheema & Sons Transport)
In Royal Bank of Canada v. 1512632 Ontario Inc. (Cheema & Sons Transport) (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed insolvency receivership-related appellate motions, here brought against "an Approval and Vesting Order (AVO) approving a sale transaction of the Real Properties of the Debtors .... and an Ancillary Relief Order (ARO), approving activities of the Receiver and authorizing it to make distributions from the proceeds of the sale transaction, among other things."
Here the court considers an issue of competing appeal routes, applying the doctrine of legislative paramountcy:Do the Procedures Set Out in the BIA Apply?
[40] The provisions of the BIA govern rights of appeal and appeal routes in this matter. The Receiver was appointed under both s. 243 of the BIA and s. 101 of the CJA. The doctrine of paramountcy prevents an appellant from resorting to the CJA appeal provisions where they are in operational conflict with those of the BIA in respect of timing and leave requirements: Business Development Bank of Canada v. Astoria Organic Matters Ltd., 2019 ONCA 269, 69 C.B.R. (6th) 13, at paras. 66-67. . Grozelle (Re)
In Grozelle (Re) (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a motion, this seeking "leave to amend their notice of appeal to seek leave to appeal the costs order".
Here the court considers whether a proposed appeal amendment is subject to BIA s.193(e), or is under the general provisions of the CJA:i. Does s. 193 of the BIA apply?
[6] I disagree with the moving parties’ submissions that the costs order was a freestanding order related to the fraudulent conveyances declaration and should be subject to the appeal provisions of the CJA.
[7] The jurisdiction of the court for the purposes of appeal is governed by the substance of the order made: RREF II BHB IV Portofino, LLC v. Portofino Corporation, 2015 ONCA 906, 33 C.B.R. (6th) 9, at para. 12; Dal Bianco v. Deem Management Services Limited, 2020 ONCA 585, 82 C.B.R. (6th) 161, at para. 11. The costs order followed the moving parties’ unsuccessful cross-motion, which focused on administrative and procedural matters within the bankruptcy. Myers J. made the costs order pursuant to the authority conferred under s. 197(1) of the BIA. That there was authority for the court to make the costs order under the CJA is of no moment. Where the authority to make the order is under the BIA and under provincial legislation in bankruptcy proceedings, the appeal is governed by the BIA as a matter of paramountcy: Business Development Bank of Canada v. Astoria Organic Matters Ltd., 2019 ONCA 269, 69 C.B.R. (6th) 13, at paras. 5, 66-67; Dal Bianco, at para. 6.
[8] Accordingly, the moving parties’ proposed appeal of the costs order is under s. 193 of the BIA.
|
