GATT v GATT

Applying under Rule 14.48(b), the Applicant sought to Stay an Order requiring him to repay $250,000 withdrawn from a home equity line of credit pending Appeal.

Shaner J.A. confirmed that Rule 14.48 engaged the well‑established tripartite test for a stay pending appeal, which asked whether:

(a)                there was a serious issue on appeal;

(b)               there will be irreparable harm caused if the stay is denied; and

(c)                the balance of convenience favoured the stay.

Although the serious issue threshold was conceded and met, the Application failed on the irreparable harm test, which the Court held was dispositive. Shaner J.A. emphasized that being required to pay money, without more, did not constitute irreparable harm, and that Courts are generally reluctant to stay monetary Orders.

The Applicant’s claims that repayment would collapse his business, prevent payment of spousal support, trigger foreclosure, or lead to bankruptcy were found to be speculative and inadequately supported by evidence. Notably, there was insufficient disclosure about the company’s financial condition, the use of the funds withdrawn, and the Applicant’s other available assets. As a result, the Applicant failed to meet the Rule 14.48 requirement of demonstrating harm that was non‑compensable or unavoidable.

The Stay Application under Rule 14.48 was therefore dismissed by the Court.