The appellants appealed a motion judge's order approving a court-appointed receiver's recommendation to sell a contaminated property to the polluter and settle related damage claims.
The appellants argued the property and claims were undervalued and sought to introduce fresh evidence alleging the motion judge was pressured into releasing his decision.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the receiver acted providentially and the settlement was commercially reasonable.
The Court allowed the receiver's cross-appeal, setting aside the motion judge's order granting the appellants leave to sue the receiver, as the motion judge applied the wrong legal test.
