This was an Application by a self-represented Applicant for a Stay of enforcement pending Appeal of a Summary Trial Decision on spousal support and property division. She sought the Stay pursuant to Rule 14.48, expressing concern that she would be unable to recover funds if they were distributed before her Appeal was heard.

The Court confirmed that, under Rule 14.68, filing an Appeal does not automatically Stay enforcement of the Decision. The Applicant therefore had to meet the tripartite test for a Stay pending Appeal. That is, she had to show: (1) a serious question to be determined; (2) irreparable harm if the Stay were not granted; and (3) a balance of convenience favouring the Applicant.

The Court found the Appeal raised a serious question regarding alleged errors in spousal support and property exemptions. On irreparable harm, Fagnan J. held that, while monetary losses are generally reparable, they may amount to irreparable harm if the Respondent lacks the means to repay funds after Appeal. The Respondent, who was retired with a fixed pension, had no other identified assets, and the amounts involved exceeded what an ordinary citizen could repay. The Court therefore accepted that irreparable harm would result if the funds were released.

On the balance of convenience, the Respondent claimed a need for funds and delay by the Applicant, but provided no Affidavit evidence to support those claims. Given the Applicant’s financial position and the absence of urgency for distribution, the balance of convenience favoured granting the Stay.

The Court granted a partial Stay of enforcement under Rule 14.48, restraining distribution of $178,750 from trust funds that would otherwise have been payable to the Respondent under the Trial Judgment.