[6] We disagree that 255 lacks the standing to appeal the Order. 255 provided the stalking horse bid for the court-approved sale process pursuant to an agreement it entered into with the Receiver (the “Stalking Horse Agreement”). At the completion of the sale process, the Receiver selected 255 as the successful bidder. The Receiver then moved for an AVO to complete the Stalking Horse Agreement transaction.
[7] The motion judge’s Order, which dismissed the Receiver’s motion and terminated the Stalking Horse Agreement, adversely affected 255 as the successful bidder in a court-approved sale process. 255 thereby has an interest in the subject matter of the proceeding that entitles it to seek appellate review of the Order: Royal Bank of Canada v. Soundair Corp. (1991), 1991 CanLII 2727 (ON CA), 4 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.), 1991 CarswellOnt 205, at paras. 39-40; Winick v. 1305067 Ontario Limited (2008), 2008 CanLII 6937 (ON SC), 41 C.B.R. (5th) 81 (Ont. S.C.), at paras. 3 and 4.[1]
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
