MIDLAND RESOURCES HOLDING LIMITED v SHTAIF, 2021 ABCA 286
14.48: Stay pending appeal
14.65: Restoring appeals
14.74: Application to dismiss an appeal
The Applicant applied for a Stay of Proceedings of a Chambers Order. The Respondent Cross-Applied for Security for Costs. In granting the Stay of Proceedings, Veldhuis JA confirmed that Rule 14.48 allows an Application for a Stay of Proceedings to be made to a single Chambers Judge.
The Court delineated the legal test for granting a Stay Pending Appeal from RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (AG) 1 SCR 311: (a) there is a serious question arguable on appeal; (b) the Applicant would suffer irreparable harm absent the Stay; and (c) the balance of convenience favours granting the Stay.
In applying the test, the Court noted that, whether there is a serious question arguable on appeal, is a low threshold, and asserted that the Applicant met the threshold to establish a serious issue. Veldhuis JA then applied the second and third parts of the test, noting that they are inexorably linked and must be considered together. The Applicant argued that he would suffer irreparable harm by having to disclose financial information and further argued that the balance of convenience favours him because of the length of the protracted proceedings and the delay in the Respondent pursuing the Applicant in Alberta. The Court found that the Applicant satisfied the second and third parts of the test and granted the Stay of Proceedings.
The Court then dealt with the Respondent’s Cross-Application for Security for Costs and an Order to dismiss the Appeal outright for being vexatious, amongst other remedies. In dealing only with the Security for Costs issue, the Court noted that Rule 14.74 does not grant a single Chambers Judge the jurisdiction to dismiss an Appeal outright; instead that Application must be heard before a panel. With respect to the Security for Costs Application, the Court found that the Respondent did not file an Affidavit in support of his Application and that generally the Application was premature. The Court advised that it would hear the Respondent’s Application for Security for Costs at a later date.
Finally, the Court stayed the filing deadlines in the Appeal, pursuant to Rule 14.65.View CanLII Details