The Court noted that Applicants can apply under Rule 14.48 to stay enforcement proceedings pending Appeals. Such Applications can be made to the Judge who made the Decision or to a single Appeal Judge.

The Defendant applied to stay enforcement of damages and Costs arising out of two related Actions pending Appeals by her and her company. The Defendant failed to meet the test for stay of enforcement and her Stay Application was denied.

The Court noted that Applicants seeking a stay of enforcement are guided by the three part test in  RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General): (i) is there a serious question to be tired, (ii) will the Applicant suffer irreparable harm if the Stay is not granted, and (iii) does the balance of convenience favour granting the Stay?

Appeal Justice Hawkes found that while the Defendant may have passed the low threshold of establishing a serious question to be tried, she could not establish irreparable harm and failed to demonstrate that the balance of conveyance favoured her position.

The Court invoked Rule 9.4(2)(c) to prepare the resulting Orders.