|
Appeal - Stay Pending Appeal - Money Order [R63.01(5)]. Peoples Trust Company v. PSP Services Inc.
In Peoples Trust Company v. PSP Services Inc. (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal granted a motion, here seeking to partially lift an automatic stay of a money order [under R63.01(1) and (5)]:B. Test for Lifting an Automatic Stay
[11] Under r. 63.01(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may bring a motion to a judge of this court to lift an automatic stay, which order may be granted on “such terms as are just.” The decision to lift a stay is discretionary: Hrvoic v. Hrvoic, 2023 ONCA 288, at para. 10.
[12] As set out by Lauwers J.A. in Antunes v. Limen Structures Ltd., 2016 ONCA 61, at para. 13, where a party seeks to lift an automatic stay, the court will consider contextual factors: the grounds of appeal; the parties’ position at trial; what has happened since the trial; the general circumstances of the case, including the trial judge’s reasons; and the probable delay between trial and appeal that cannot be controlled by the parties.
[13] The test for lifting a stay is set out in SA Horeca Financial Services v. Light, 2014 ONCA 811, 123 O.R. (3d) 542, at para. 13, and requires consideration of three principal factors:a. the financial hardship to the respondent if the stay is not lifted;
b. the ability of the respondent to repay or provide security for the amount paid; and
c. the merits of the appeal. [14] As noted, the context of the appeal is important. For example, if an appellant will still have to pay the respondent even if successful on appeal, the court may be more inclined to partially life the stay: see Hrvoic, at para. 17.
|
