Royce Presidential Investments Inc. v. Valour Group Inc.

Royce Presidential Investments Inc. v. Valour Group Inc.

The motion for a stay pending appeal was dismissed because the appellants' appeal is arguable but weak, they failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, the balance of convenience favours the respondent, and the appellants breached the August 28, 2025 disclosure order and did not come to court with clean hands; the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2025 ONCA 903
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Royce Presidential Investments Inc.; Defendant/appellant: Valour Group Inc.; Defendant/appellant: Valour Group Holdings Inc.; Defendant/appellant: Pro-Funds Inc.; Defendant/appellant: Carmen Campagnaro; Defendant/appellant: Richard Hall
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Collection / Motion for Stay Pending Appeal of Order Striking Out Statement of Defence
Outcome
Motion for stay pending appeal dismissed; October 16, 2025 order striking out the appellants' statement of defence remains in effect; respondent awarded costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
Affidavit of Documents, Disclosure Obligations, Strike Out of Defence, Stay Pending Appeal, Costs
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Collection Enforcement Appeal Affidavit of Documents Disclosure Obligations Strike Out of Defence Stay Pending Appeal +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royce Presidential Investments Inc.

Plaintiff/respondent

Valour Group Inc.

Defendant/appellant

Valour Group Holdings Inc.

Defendant/appellant

Pro-Funds Inc.

Defendant/appellant

Carmen Campagnaro

Defendant/appellant

Richard Hall

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Collection / Motion for Stay Pending Appeal of Order Striking Out Statement of Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay pending appeal should be granted under r.63.02(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure
  2. 2 Whether the motion judge erred in striking out the appellants' statement of defence for non-compliance with an order to produce affidavits of documents
  3. 3 Whether the affidavits of documents served complied with r.30.03 and the August 28, 2025 court order

Ratio Decidendi

The motion for a stay pending appeal was dismissed because the appellants' appeal is arguable but weak, they failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, the balance of convenience favours the respondent, and the appellants breached the August 28, 2025 disclosure order and did not come to court with clean hands; the motion judge acted within his discretion in striking the statement of defence for deficient affidavits of documents in non-compliance with the Rules and the court order.

Court Disposition

Motion for stay pending appeal dismissed; October 16, 2025 order striking out the appellants' statement of defence remains in effect; respondent awarded costs of the motion.

Orders

  • Stay pending appeal denied
  • Respondent entitled to its costs of this motion and the prior motion before Gambacorta J.; if parties cannot agree on scale and quantum, they may deliver written submissions of no more than two pages plus bill of costs within 7 days of release of these reasons