The Applicant sought to stay the enforcement of an Order for ongoing and retroactive child support pending his Appeal of that Order (the “Stay Application”). The Applicant also sought to delay the filing deadline for his Factum, Authorities and Extracts of Key Evidence (the “Extension Application”).

Justice Strekaf noted that Rule 14.68 provides that filing an Appeal does not stay the enforcement of the Decision under Appeal unless otherwise ordered under Rule 14.48. Strekaf J.A. noted that, in order to obtain a Stay pending Appeal, the Applicant must first establish: (1) an arguable issue on Appeal; (2) that the Applicant would suffer irreparable harm if a Stay is not granted; and (3) that the balance of convenience favours a Stay.

The Applicant asserted that he was between employment contracts and was therefore unable to make the support payments contemplated in the Order. While the Applicant maintained equity in two properties, he was concerned that the Maintenance Enforcement Program (“MEP”) would take enforcement steps against the property on which he resided with his daughter. Justice Strekaf found that the Applicant had not demonstrated that it was likely that any enforcement steps taken by the MEP would result in irreparable harm prior to the hearing of his Appeal. Moreover, Her Ladyship determined that there was no evidence that monies collected by the MEP would not be recoverable if the Applicant’s Appeal was ultimately successful.

Strekaf J.A. therefore dismissed the Stay Application but concluded that, since the Appeal record and hearing transcript had already been filed and that the self-represented Applicant resided in British Columbia, in the circumstances, the Extension Application should be granted.