Court of Appeal for Ontario

DATE: 20230619 DOCKET: M54271, M54330 & M54336 (COA-23-CV-0420) Roberts, Trotter and Sossin JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Mark Libfeld, 1331081 Ontario Inc., 2091170 Ontario Inc. and Vitanna Construction Ltd. Applicants (Respondents)

and

Sheldon Libfeld, Corey Libfeld, Jay Libfeld, Shelfran Investments Ltd. and Viewmark Homes Ltd., and their respective affiliates and subsidiaries as set out on Schedule “A” to the Notice of Application Respondents (Appellants / Respondent)

AND BETWEEN

Sheldon Libfeld, 1331088 Ontario Inc., Corey Libfeld, 1331078 Ontario Inc., Jay Libfeld and 1331091 Ontario Inc. Applicants (Appellants / Respondents)

and

Mark Libfeld, 1331081 Ontario Inc., Edith Lorraine Libfeld and The Conservatory Group Companies (as Listed in Schedule A) Respondents (Respondents)

Counsel

David Chernos and Bryan McLeese, for the appellants/responding parties (M54271, M54330 & M54336) Sheldon Libfeld and 1331088 Ontario Inc. Gary Luftspring and Andrea Sanche, for the appellants/responding parties (M54271, M54330 & M54336) Jay Libfeld and 1331091 Ontario Inc. Eli Lederman, for the respondents/moving parties (M54336) Mark Libfeld, 1331081 Ontario Inc., 2091170 Ontario Inc. and Vitanna Construction Ltd. R. Paul Steep, for the respondents/moving parties (M54330) Corey Libfeld and 1331078 Ontario Inc. Harvey Chaiton and Laura Culleton, for the moving party (M54271), Ernst & Young Inc., Court-Appointed Sales Officer No one appearing for the respondent Edith Lorraine Libfeld No one appearing for the respondent The Conservatory Group Companies (as Listed in Schedule A)

Heard and released orally: June 13, 2023

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] The court-appointed sales officer, Ernst & Young (“the Sales Officer”), and the respondents move to quash the appeal from the trial judge’s March 16, 2023 order approving the sale process pursuant to the June 30, 2021 trial judgment (“the approval order”).

[2] In the trial judgment, the trial judge ordered that the family business, The Conservatory Group, be wound up and sold, which order was upheld by this court: see: Libfeld v. Libfeld, 2023 ONCA 128. The Sales Officer brought a motion for approval of a proposed sales process to sell the assets of the Conservatory Group in accordance with the trial judgment, which resulted in the approval order.

[3] The approval order is clearly interlocutory. It serves as the mechanism by which the remedies ordered by the trial judge in the trial judgment are to be implemented. In particular, the timing, manner, and financing of any purchase is procedural and does not determine any substantive issues between the parties.

[4] Accordingly, the correct appeal route is to the Divisional Court, with leave. The motions to quash the appeal from the approval order are allowed. The Sales Officer and the respondents have consented to the appellants’ request for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal from the Divisional Court within 30 days.

[5] The Sales Officer is not seeking costs. The parties have agreed that the respondents are entitled to their costs collectively in the amount of $7,500 all inclusive.

“L.B Roberts J.A.”

“Gary Trotter J.A.”

“L. Sossin J.A.”