The Applicant, Ms. Carbone, appealed an Order renewing a Judgment in favour of the Respondent pursuant to Rule 9.21 (the “New Judgment Order“) and a Costs Order (the “Costs Order” and, collectively with the New Judgment Order, the “Orders”). Pending the outcome of the Appeals, Ms. Carbone sought a stay of the Orders (the “Stay Application“).

Justice Jones noted that with respect to the New Judgment Order, the Applications Judge rejected the Applicant’s argument that the Affidavit filed in support of the Rule 9.21 Application contravened Rule 13.18 because it was not sworn on the basis of personal knowledge. The Applications Judge accepted that affidavits based on information and belief were acceptable for Rule 9.21 Applications.

With respect to the three-part test for a stay, the Court found that the Applicant failed to establish a serious issue to be tried because the grounds of Appeal raised for the New Judgment Order did not have merit and because the Applications Judge was transparent and fair with respect to the Costs Order. Similarly, Jones J. found that the Applicant did not establish that she would suffer irreparable harm if the Stay Application was not granted because, in part, no evidence was filed to support this position. Finally, the Court held that the balance of convenience favoured the Respondents because, in part, denying the benefit of the Judgment that the Respondents received would be a denial of their right to access to justice. Thus, the Stay Application was dismissed.