THE TORONTO DOMINION BANK v MANAH

The Respondents filed an appeal of an Order dated May 13, 2025, dismissing their application for an extension of time to appeal the Order of an Applications Judge dated March 10, 2025 (“Sale Order”), which granted the sale of the property to the Applicant. The Applicant applied to dismiss the Appeal on the basis that it was moot, pursuant to Rule 14.74(b).

In considering whether to dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 14.74(b), the Court of Appeal considered the relevant case law on mootness. In doing so, the Court stated that an appeal is moot if it will not have the effect of resolving some controversy which affects or may affect the rights of the parties. A live controversy may no longer exist when the question before the Court has been eliminated due to subsequent events, when the decision would no longer have any practical effect on the rights of the parties, or where the practical relief sought is no longer available due to changes in either the factual or legal circumstances of the case.

The Court concluded the Appeal was moot as there were binding Court Orders confirming that the Respondents were indebted to the Applicant and that the Applicant was entitled to foreclosure remedies. Since the Sale Order, the property had been sold to a third-party purchaser for value. The relief ultimately sought—undoing the Sale Order—was no longer available due to the subsequent sale and could not be practically reversed. Given this, the Appeal could not have any practical effect on the rights of the parties.

The Court declined to exercise its residual discretion to hear the appeal, notwithstanding it was moot, citing the Respondents’ Arguments as being devoid of merit and thus, not of public importance.