The parties, equal shareholders in six corporations holding real property, were engaged in a commercial dispute involving competing oppression claims.
The motion judge appointed a Sales Officer to initiate a process for the potential sale of the properties.
The appellant appealed the order and sought a stay pending appeal, while the respondent moved to quash the appeal on the basis that the order was interlocutory and required leave.
The Divisional Court held that the order was interlocutory because any actual sale required further court approval, meaning no substantive rights were finally determined.
Consequently, the appeal was quashed for lack of leave, and the motion for a stay was dismissed as premature since no irreparable harm could occur before a sale was approved.
