The plaintiff sought to appeal a costs order arising from a fraudulent conveyance action.
The motion judge had ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs and refused to allow a set-off for the amount the defendant owed the plaintiff.
The defendant argued leave to appeal was required under s. 133(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.
The Court of Appeal held that leave was not required because the refusal of a set-off had a substantive effect on the plaintiff's legal rights, extending beyond mere entitlement to and quantum of costs.
The court also declined to order security for costs and directed that the costs appeal be heard with the main appeal.