P. Dollak

The appellant sought to appeal an order affirming an interlocutory order that directed him to answer questions on a debtor examination, alleging procedural fairness and bias.

The appellant had already been denied leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, holding that no appeal lies to the Court of Appeal to challenge an order affirming an interlocutory order, and that the appellant could not create a second route of appeal by requesting an order to quash the original order.

The appellant sought to appeal an order affirming an interlocutory order that directed him to answer questions on a debtor examination.

The appellant alleged procedural fairness and bias in the proceedings leading to the interlocutory order.

The Court of Appeal held that the order remained interlocutory and subject to the appeal route to the Divisional Court, where leave had already been denied.

The appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.