The Ontario Court of Appeal has refused to extend the relevant timeline under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency General Rules (BIA Rules) upon determining that the proposed appeal engaged no issues of general importance in bankruptcy and insolvency law.
In Toronto-Dominion Bank v. 1871 Berkeley Events Inc., 2026 ONCA 22, the moving party corporations owned and operated an events centre that came under the control of the respondent receiver in July 2023.
An unopposed order made in January 2024 authorized the receiver to sell the events centre. The property remained on the market for nearly two years.
In August 2025, the receiver executed an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) with an interested buyer. The receiver filed a motion seeking the agreement’s approval and a vesting order to close the sale (AVO).
The receiver disclosed to the moving parties confidential and commercially sensitive details regarding the proposed sale. However, the moving parties included these details in their public filings relating to the motion.
On Oct. 28, 2025, the motion judge granted the receiver’s motion for the AVO. He deferred to the receiver’s acceptance of the APS, as he had to do under the principles established in Royal Bank of Canada v. Soundair Corp., 1991 CanLII 2727 (ON CA).
The judge determined that the receiver did not act improvidently, reasonably accepted an unconditional offer within a narrow range of three other offers submitted, and made responsible efforts to sell without bad faith.
By Nov. 1, 2025, within the appeal period, the moving parties attempted to bring an appeal. However, they erroneously filed their documents with the Ontario Divisional Court. Two days later, the receiver’s counsel told the moving parties that they should have appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
On Dec. 4, 2025, the moving parties sent the Ontario Court of Appeal an updated motion for leave to appeal. The registrar rejected this updated motion, given multiple deficiencies in the materials.
A non-lawyer received leave to represent the moving parties in the receivership proceedings. He moved to extend the timeline and stay the AVO.
Extension and stay denied
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed both motions of the moving parties.
The appeal court noted that deterring delay in the receivership process would serve the interests of justice.
The appeal court explained that r. 31(1) of the BIA Rules gave 10 days to appeal orders under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, 1985. The appeal court ruled that the moving parties failed to establish that the justice of the case required extending the 10-day timeline.
The appeal court addressed the factors for granting an extension, as stated in Shaver-Kudell Manufacturing Inc. v. Knight Manufacturing Inc., 2021 ONCA 202. First, the appeal court held that the moving parties had a bona fide intention to appeal within the appeal period.
Second, the appeal court determined that the moving parties failed to give a persuasive explanation for the delay, which was almost four times the relevant appeal period.
The appeal court added that the non-lawyer representing the moving parties in the receivership proceedings mainly relied on bald assertions regarding the court staff’s unspecified errors, rather than providing evidence to explain the delay.
Third, the appeal court ruled that the delay resulted in ample prejudice to the receiver, which was carrying the property’s ongoing costs until its sale. The appeal court noted that:
- The delay could jeopardize the sale
- The APS contained a condition precedent that would be subject to breach upon the entry of an appeal prohibiting or restricting the sale’s closing
- The non-lawyer’s conduct – specifically in publicizing confidential information about the price the receiver could accept and the property’s marketing details – would prejudice a future bidding process, if the proposed APS did not close and a re-listing became necessary
Fourth, the appeal court found that the proposed motion for leave to appeal lacked merit. The appeal court pointed out that granting leave would unduly hamper the progress of the bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings.
The appeal court added that the proposed appeal lacked merit on its face or issues of general importance in bankruptcy and insolvency law.
Given the dismissal of the motion for an extension, the appeal court deemed it appropriate also to dismiss the motion seeking a stay pending the appeal.
The appeal court explained that the balance of convenience favoured the responding party rather than the moving parties because a delay in the sale would prejudice the receiver and creditors, whose losses would not be compensable, given the bankrupt estate.