Trikona Advisers Ltd. v. Haida Investments Ltd.

Summary

The court held that Haida had standing to appeal the interlocutory judgment of interpleader because the allegations showed a possible adverse effect on Haida's security interest in the shares. It further held that review of an interlocutory judgment of interpleader is de novo and that the pleadings sufficiently alleged facially competing claims, without requiring the court to decide the merits of those claims at the preliminary stage. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.