Application for a stay was dismissed because the appeal and underlying judicial review were of little merit, there was insufficient evidence of irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondents given the appellants' delay and repeated procedural abuses; deference to Justice Hewson's discretionary case management decision warranted upholding the cancellation of the stay.
The application for a stay was dismissed because the appellant failed to establish a serious issue to be tried regarding the refusal to permit cross-examination, failed to show irreparable harm from the refusal, and the balance of convenience favored allowing the underlying proceedings to continue given deference to the trial judge's discretionary management and the public interest in proportionality and efficient use of court resources.
Appeal allowed in part: the Federal Court erred in requiring proof of significant prejudice to establish unreasonable delay and in finding no clear right and no practical effect; appellants established that ERC delay was longer than the nature of its process required and ERC failed to provide a satisfactory, case‑specific justification; mandamus will issue compelling ERC to render findings and recommendations in each appellant's appeal within six months (subject to reasonable extension); second mandamus to compel publication of all‑inclusive service standards denied because section 28.1 confe…
Application dismissed because petitioner sought mandatory relief but failed to show a strong prima facie case on the merits; petitioner established only a modest risk of irreparable reputational harm on an uncertain evidentiary basis; and the balance of convenience favoured respondent because granting the injunction would certainly destroy an ongoing profitable business, alter the status quo, and impose significant financial harm while the merits (including enforceability of the written partnership clauses) were not sufficiently in petitioner's favour.
Source excerpt
Dissolution of partnership
Interlocutory mandatory injunction
Irreparable harm
Balance of convenience
Interpretation and enforceability of written partnership agreement
The application for a stay was dismissed because the applicant satisfied the low threshold on merit but failed to establish irreparable harm and failed the balance of convenience: registrar findings and financial disclosure demonstrated the applicant had sufficient liquid assets and income to meet the immediate payment obligations, any harm was monetary and remediable, and the interests of justice and convenience favoured the respondent who would be deprived of the fruits of judgment if the stay were granted.
Application dismissed because appellant failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, provided no evidence of irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the landlord; a stay would not affect enforcement of the possession order and would permit resiling from a freely made settlement; chambers judge's discretionary decision was not shown to be in error.
AY Construction Ltd. established a strong prima facie proprietary interest in the Bobcat, steel I-beams and cutting torch based on documentary and corroborated employee evidence; Ms. Yager lacked title to sell; balance of convenience favored provisional return of the Equipment to AY Construction Ltd.; replevin ordered without security and subject to resolution at trial.
The Federal Court dismissed a motion to stay removal to India, finding no serious issue on the PRRA challenge and no clear, non-speculative irreparable harm.