Grillone v. B. Riley Farber Inc.

Grillone v. B. Riley Farber Inc.

Because the relief sought (setting aside the Superintendent's decision and ordering a further investigation) would, if granted, prejudicially affect the Trustee by exposing it to further inquiry, the Trustee is "directly affected" under Rule 303(1); therefore the Associate Judge's substitution of the Trustee as respondent was proper, the Rule 303 Order is maintained, the Rule 51 appeal is dismissed, and costs are denied given shared procedural responsibility and a significant misstatement of service date by counsel for the Attorney General.

Citation
2025 FC 1696
Parties
Applicant: Sergio Grillone; Respondent (trustee): B. Riley Farber Inc.; Attorney General: Attorney General of Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (bankruptcy and Insolvency Act) With Rule 51 Appeal / Rule 51 Appeal From Associate Judge's Rule 303 Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Associate Judge's Rule 303 Order upheld
Legal Topics
Rule 303 Federal Courts Rules, Justiciability, Substitution of Parties, Service and Procedural Fairness, Costs, Case Management
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Bankruptcy and Insolvency Civil Procedure Judicial Review Rule 303 Federal Courts Rules Justiciability Substitution of Parties Service and Procedural Fairness +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sergio Grillone

Applicant

B. Riley Farber Inc.

Respondent (trustee)

Attorney General of Canada

Attorney General

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (bankruptcy and Insolvency Act) With Rule 51 Appeal / Rule 51 Appeal From Associate Judge's Rule 303 Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Trustee is "directly affected" for purposes of Rule 303(1) of the Federal Courts Rules and thus must be named as a respondent
  2. 2 Whether the decision to not proceed with an investigation is reviewable/justiciable and whether that affects the Rule 303 inquiry
  3. 3 Whether new issues not before the Associate Judge may be considered on a Rule 51 appeal (de novo consideration)

Ratio Decidendi

Because the relief sought (setting aside the Superintendent's decision and ordering a further investigation) would, if granted, prejudicially affect the Trustee by exposing it to further inquiry, the Trustee is "directly affected" under Rule 303(1); therefore the Associate Judge's substitution of the Trustee as respondent was proper, the Rule 303 Order is maintained, the Rule 51 appeal is dismissed, and costs are denied given shared procedural responsibility and a significant misstatement of service date by counsel for the Attorney General.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Associate Judge's Rule 303 Order upheld

Orders

  • The appeal of the Associate Judge's decision dated April 9, 2025 is dismissed
  • No costs are awarded