The supreme court can refuse to hear a case.

They have a schedule setting out when hearings are held, and often will release a bunch of decisions at once.

The basis for any appeal is that there was an error in law at the original trial. Just like in the US, it is not common for the supreme court to reverse lower decisions. Most of their decisions are reported as one-liners by obscure case reporting services.

Like the US court, they tend to take on cases that have raised an important constitutional issue, one that deals with provisncial vs. federal powers, or basic human rights - often not to overturn decisions, but to put a seal of approval on a particular position taken by a lower court. They understand that the common law system is set up to use precedent in previous decisions as the basis for future decisions, so if they specifically rule on some aspect of law, whether they reverse a lower decision or not, they cut off future litigation in the area.

Without having followed the legal stuff too closely, I would be surprised if they decided to hear an appeal in the noteholders' case.