The Applicant previously appealed an Order to enforce an Arbitration award (the “Appealed Order”) in relation to a family law dispute. The Applicant applied for a Stay of enforcement of the Appealed Order pending Appeal pursuant to Rule 14.48.

The Court noted that Rule 14.48 provides that an Application to Stay proceedings or enforcement of a Decision pending Appeal may be made to a single Appellate Judge. The Court also noted that the Applicant must show that: (1) There is a serious question to be considered on Appeal; (2) It will suffer irreparable harm if the Stay is not granted, and (3) The balance of convenience favours granting the Stay.

The Court determined that the Applicant failed to satisfy the test for a Stay. The Court found that the Applicant met the low threshold to establish a serious issued to be tried but failed to establish irreparable harm. The Court found that the Applicant failed to show that he would suffer harm that could not be quantified in monetary terms despite the Applicant’s argument that a property that would be sold under the Arbitration award had sentimental value. The Court also determine that the balance of convenience did not favour granting a Stay.