Simon's Legal Resources

Paramountcy - Insolvency

. Royal Bank of Canada v. 1512632 Ontario Inc. (Cheema & Sons Transport)

In Royal Bank of Canada v. 1512632 Ontario Inc. (Cheema & Sons Transport) (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed insolvency receivership-related appellate motions, here brought against "an Approval and Vesting Order (AVO) approving a sale transaction of the Real Properties of the Debtors .... and an Ancillary Relief Order (ARO), approving activities of the Receiver and authorizing it to make distributions from the proceeds of the sale transaction, among other things."

Here the court considers an issue of competing appeal routes, applying the doctrine of legislative paramountcy:

Do the Procedures Set Out in the BIA Apply?

[40] The provisions of the BIA govern rights of appeal and appeal routes in this matter. The Receiver was appointed under both s. 243 of the BIA and s. 101 of the CJA. The doctrine of paramountcy prevents an appellant from resorting to the CJA appeal provisions where they are in operational conflict with those of the BIA in respect of timing and leave requirements: Business Development Bank of Canada v. Astoria Organic Matters Ltd., 2019 ONCA 269, 69 C.B.R. (6th) 13, at paras. 66-67.