The Appellant applied for a Stay Pending Appeal under Rule 14.48, which allows a Judge to stay enforcement of a decision while an appeal is underway. The Appellant sought to stay a March 2025 Order requiring him to vacate the Respondents’ land and remove his personal property. The Appellant also initially sought to stay an earlier December 2024 Order in a separate matter involving Lacombe County, but this part of the Application was dismissed early on, as the Order was not under Appeal and had already been extended by consent.

The Court analyzed the request under the three-part test in RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General): (1) a serious issue to be tried, (2) irreparable harm, and (3) balance of convenience. Grosse J.A. accepted that there was a serious issue to be tried, noting that the relationship between the Appellant and the Respondent might have legal implications—possibly a tenancy or contractual arrangement. However, the Court was not satisfied that irreparable harm had been demonstrated. Appeal Justice Grosse noted that while the Appellant did raise some concerns about losing sentimental and valuable property, much of it had already been dismantled or removed, and such loss could generally be compensated with damages.

On the balance of convenience, the Court found the Appellant had multiple opportunities to remove his property but failed to act decisively. The Court also emphasized that the Respondent was acting under pressure to comply with the County’s Order, and interference through a stay could jeopardize that compliance. Grosse J.A. ultimately concluded that a stay was not just or equitable in the circumstances and dismissed the Application. The Court emphasized that Rule 14.48 relief must serve justice; and in this case, the complexity of underlying disputes and lack of practical remedies weighed against a stay being granted.