HML CONTRACTING LTD v TWISTED PAIR TECHNICAL SERVICES INC

The Plaintiff was granted Summary Judgment against an individual Defendant, which the Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal. Pending the determination of the Appeal, the Defendant applied for a Stay of Execution of the Judgment.

Rather than applying under Rule 14.48, the Defendant applied under section 17 of the Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2 citing the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and discretion to grant Stays of Execution of its own judgments. Nevertheless, Madam Justice Harris noted that Rule 1.4(2)(h) also gave the Court authority to “adjourn or stay all or any part of an action, application or proceeding, extend the time for doing anything in the proceeding, or stay the effect of a judgment or order”.

Madam Justice Harris denied the Application for a Stay of Execution because the Applicant failed to establish that there exists a “plausible counterclaim or set off” or “exceptional circumstances” required for such a Stay pursuant to Rule 1.4.