ADVEN INC (RE), 2026 ABCA 310

The Respondents to an Appeal applied to strike the Notice of Appeal of an Order made in insolvency proceedings on the basis that permission to appeal was required but not sought. The Appellants cross-applied for a declaration that permission to appeal was unnecessary or, alternatively, for an extension of time and an Order granting permission to appeal.

The underlying Order approved interim financing and a sale and investment solicitation process, granted priority charges, and refused the Appellants’ request for an adjournment. The Appellants challenged the procedural aspects of the hearing, the interim financing and priority charges, and the sale process.

The Court considered Rule 14.5 together with the appeal provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 (“BIA”).

Fagnan J.A. found that permission to appeal was required. The challenges to service, notice, and the refusal of an adjournment concerned procedural matters, and Rule 14.5(1)(b) independently required permission to appeal a decision respecting an adjournment. The terms relating to the sale process were also procedural. Further, because the Appellants had agreed to the sale process during the hearing, Rule 14.5(1)(d) required permission to appeal that aspect of the Order. The Court also found that the Appellants had not established an actual loss resulting from the Order that would provide an appeal as of right under the BIA.

The Court denied the extension of time because the Appellants had no reasonable explanation for failing to seek permission within time and lacked a reasonable prospect of success. Fagnan J.A. added that permission would have been denied in any event, noting that the points on appeal were not of significance to the practice nor the Action. The Application to strike the Notice of Appeal was granted.