Simon's Legal Resources

Insolvency (BIA) - Appeals - Stay Pending Appeal

. Lozovski v. Equityline Mortgage Investment Corporation

In Lozovski v. Equityline Mortgage Investment Corporation (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal considered several BIA s.193 appeal route issues.

Here the court cites a statutory stay pending appeal provision of the BIA [s.195]:

[3] If ss. 193(a)-(d) apply, or if leave is granted under s. 193(e), then s. 195 operates to stay the BIA proceedings under the order or judgment from which the appeal is taken until the Court of Appeal disposes of the appeal, subject to certain exceptions.

. Toronto-Dominion Bank v. 1871 Berkeley Events Inc. [stay pending leave to appeal]

In Toronto-Dominion Bank v. 1871 Berkeley Events Inc. (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal considered motions to extend time to commence a leave to appeal application, and (if granted) a stay pending appeal - here in an insolvency (BIA) context.

With respect to the stay pending appeal (where leave was also required), the court states:

MOTION 2: STAY PENDING APPEAL

[14] It follows that the motion for a stay pending appeal is also dismissed. There is no appeal process before this Court. The jurisdiction of an appeal court to order a stay is provided by r. 63.02(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, and exists where “a motion for leave to appeal has been made” or when “an appeal has been taken”. Now that the motion for an extension of time to file the appeal has been dismissed, there is no appeal before this Court (see also r. 63.02(2)).

[15] Even if I had jurisdiction to do so I would have dismissed the motion, as I am not satisfied that this is an appropriate case for ordering a stay. In my view, the moving parties have not raised a serious issue to be decided on appeal. Although the pending sale of the building will put it out of reach, I am not persuaded on this record that this is non-compensable harm. A delay in the sale is prejudicial to the Receiver and creditors, whose loss will not be compensable given the bankrupt estate, therefore the balance of convenience would favor the responding party rather than the moving parties in this case.