Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Receiver, MNP Ltd, applied to strike the Notice of Appeal filed by Skyview Parking and RV Storage Ltd and To Let Housing Corporation in proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA).

• A central issue was whether the appeal from the sale process order fit within section 193(a)–(d) of the BIA (appeals as of right) or required leave under section 193(e).

• The respondents’ complaints about defects in the Receiver’s report and alleged denial of procedural fairness (through refusal of an adjournment) were held to fall under section 193(e), for which leave to appeal is required.

• Their reliance on section 193(c), based on the value of the properties and possible amounts owing to the Canada Revenue Agency, failed because the sale process order was interlocutory and did not finally determine economic interests.

• The Court found that authorities from other jurisdictions did not assist the respondents, as those cases were distinguishable and confirmed that orders merely approving a sale process still require leave under section 193(e).

• Because the matter fell within section 193(e) and the respondents had not sought leave, the Notice of Appeal was of no effect under section 31(2) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency General Rules, and the motion to strike was granted.

Background and facts of the case
This matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of Alberta in MNP Ltd v Skyview Parking and RV Storage Ltd and To Let Housing Corporation, 2026 ABCA 91. The proceeding arose under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 (BIA). A consent receivership order was granted on September 8, 2025, appointing MNP Ltd as the Receiver over the debtor companies Skyview Parking and RV Storage Ltd and To Let Housing Corporation. On November 3, 2025, the Receiver filed its first report together with an application for approval of a sale and investment solicitation process, referred to as a “sale process order.” The application included a provision for court approval of any successful bid. The application was heard on November 10, 2025. The sale process order was pronounced and entered on November 14, 2025. Six days later, the respondents filed a Notice of Appeal contesting the substance of that order.

The applications before the Court of Appeal
Two related applications came before the Court of Appeal. First, the Receiver, MNP Ltd, applied to strike the Notice of Appeal filed by the debtor companies. In the alternative, the Receiver sought an order for security for costs. The Court identified that section 193 of the BIA specifies five circumstances in which appeals to the Court are permitted: four are as of right, and the fifth requires leave by a judge of the Court. The characterization of the appeal under section 193 was therefore of central importance. The applications were heard on February 25, 2026, and the reasons of Justice Joshua B. Hawkes were filed at Calgary, Alberta, on March 23, 2026.

Positions of the parties on the nature of the appeal
The Receiver took the position that the appeal did not fall within any of the enumerated provisions in section 193(a) through (d) and thus required leave to appeal pursuant to section 193(e). The respondent debtor companies maintained that leave was not required and did not seek leave to appeal. In their memorandum of argument, the respondents asserted that there were several defects in the Receiver’s report and that they were denied procedural fairness at the hearing when the chambers justice denied their application for an adjournment. Initially, it appeared that the respondents were seeking to bring their appeal under section 193(a). As clarified at the oral hearing, they contended that the appeal should properly be characterized under section 193(c), having regard to the value of the properties involved and to potential amounts owing to the Canada Revenue Agency from a principal of the debtor companies.

Court’s analysis under section 193(a) and section 193(e)
Justice Hawkes held that the authorities did not support characterizing the matter as arising under section 193(a). The reasons state that the right to procedural fairness involves a current rather than a future right and that such claims fall within the scope of section 193(e). As a result, leave to appeal was required for the respondents’ procedural fairness complaints and related challenges. The Court therefore treated the respondents’ arguments about defects in the Receiver’s report and the refusal of an adjournment as matters that could only be appealed with leave under section 193(e).

Court’s analysis under section 193(c) and the interlocutory nature of the order
The Court also rejected the respondents’ attempt to rely on section 193(c) based on the value of the properties and possible amounts owed to the Canada Revenue Agency. The reasons note that the cases cited by the respondents were factually and legally distinguishable, involving different statutes, different provisions of the BIA, or situations where leave to appeal had been unopposed. A key feature in this case was that any sale resulting from the sale process order was subject to court approval. On that basis, the Court characterized the sale process order as interlocutory and held that it did not make any final determination of economic interests. In such circumstances, recourse to section 193(c) was not available.

The Court recognized that, in some situations, the “operative effect” of an order directing a specific sale process may result in an actual loss or gain or place in jeopardy property exceeding the monetary threshold in section 193(c), and that the analysis must consider the substance rather than merely the form of the order. The reasons give examples drawn from other cases, such as where a proposed sale process would undercut an existing unconditional offer resulting in a loss that would “inevitably” exceed $10,000, or where a conditional offer far exceeds the price offered on an unconditional sale proposed by a receiver. However, the Court found that there was nothing in the sale process order in this case to support such a claim or to allow the Court to determine the value of the property in question, because issues of gain or loss could not be evaluated or determined at this stage.

Arguments about competing authorities and referral to a panel
The respondents argued that the matter should be referred to a panel for determination in light of what they characterized as competing authorities on the scope of section 193(c) from the Saskatchewan and Ontario Courts of Appeal. The Court observed that its conclusion was not dependent on resolving those lines of authority. The reasons note that cases from both jurisdictions have held that leave is still required under section 193(e) where the order in question simply approves a process for sale.

Ruling and overall outcome
In conclusion, Justice Hawkes found that the matter properly fell within the scope of section 193(e) of the BIA and that leave to appeal was required. Because leave to appeal had not been sought, the Notice of Appeal did not comply with section 31(2) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency General Rules, CRC c 368, and was therefore of no effect. The motion to strike the Notice of Appeal was granted in favour of the applicant, MNP Ltd. In light of this conclusion, the Court stated that it was unnecessary to address the application for security for costs. The decision does not state any specific monetary amount ordered, granted, or awarded in favour of any party.