Kedmi v. Korem

Kedmi v. Korem

The motion for a stay was dismissed because the appellant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm on a balance of probabilities; the respondent showed assets were encumbered and creditor arrangements existed such that dissipation was speculative and a stay would risk prejudicing creditors and recovery efforts,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2012 NSCA 90
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Iris Kedmi; Respondent: Nahman Korem
Court
Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Motion for Stay Pending Appeal and Application to Amend Notice of Appeal
Outcome
Motion for stay dismissed.
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Settlement Agreements and Consent Orders, Matrimonial Property Division, Spousal and Child Support, Standard of Review on Motions
Source Language
english
Family Law Civil Procedure Appeals Stay of Execution Settlement Agreements and Consent Orders Matrimonial Property Division Spousal and Child Support Standard of Review on Motions

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iris Kedmi

Applicant/appellant

Nahman Korem

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Motion for Stay Pending Appeal and Application to Amend Notice of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant a stay of the Consent Corollary Relief Order pending appeal under Rule 90.41
  2. 2 Whether the appellant has demonstrated irreparable harm sufficient to meet the primary Fulton test
  3. 3 Whether the consent order inaccurately reflected the settlement such that specific provisions should be stayed

Ratio Decidendi

The motion for a stay was dismissed because the appellant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm on a balance of probabilities; the respondent showed assets were encumbered and creditor arrangements existed such that dissipation was speculative and a stay would risk prejudicing creditors and recovery efforts, outweighing the appellant's unsupported assertions of harm.

Court Disposition

Motion for stay dismissed.

Orders

  • Motion for stay dismissed.
  • No costs awarded to either party.