Investors in a bankrupt's Ponzi scheme moved for leave to amend their notice of appeal to seek leave to appeal a $180,000 costs order arising from an unsuccessful cross-motion in the bankruptcy proceeding.
The motion judge held that the substance of the costs order was procedural and that it was made under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, so the appeal route was governed by s. 193 of the BIA rather than the Courts of Justice Act.
Applying the narrow approach to appeals as of right under s. 193(c), the court found the order did not engage the bankrupt's property or produce a qualifying loss and therefore required leave under s. 193(e).
Leave was denied because the proposed appeal raised no issue of general importance, lacked prima facie merit, and would hinder the progress of the bankruptcy.
