|
Stays - Equity. Royce Presidential Investments Inc. v. Valour Group Inc.
In Royce Presidential Investments Inc. v. Valour Group Inc. (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a motion for a stay pending appeal, here in an appeal against an "order striking out their statement of defence" for non-compliance with earlier orders.
The court notes (and applies) the equitable nature of a stay, here a stay pending appeal:4. Justice of the case
[40] A stay is an equitable remedy. A party seeking such a remedy must come to court with clean hands. This includes compliance with procedural obligations and court orders: Blench v. Cheng, 2024 ABCA 73, [2024] A.W.L.D. 1553, at paras. 5-6; Beaver v. Hill, 2018 ONCA 415, at para. 20.
[41] The appellants in this case do not have clean hands. They have not complied with their obligations under the Rules. They have breached the August 28, 2025 court order in several respects: they did not serve all their affidavits of documents by September 12, 2025; the affidavits of documents were defective; and they did not pay $1,000 in costs. They never sought to appeal this order or set it aside. I note that they still have not produced revised affidavits of documents containing further relevant documents that must be in their possession and that they take the position that they are not obligated to do so.
[42] Moreover, the appellants’ conduct to date in these proceedings demonstrates a desire to delay. According to the responding affidavit on the motion purporting to explain the appellants’ failed compliance, the appellants did not provide timely instructions to their counsel. They are pursuing a weak appeal in what seems to be an endeavour to forestall the respondent’s efforts to collect on the promissory notes to which they appear to have raised a perfunctory defence.
[43] I am not persuaded that the justice of the case warrants the requested stay, even if conditional on the appellants’ satisfying all the respondent’s suggested terms. The appellants object to all of these terms and simply suggest that the appeal be expedited and that they be ordered to comply with payment of the $1,000 already ordered to be paid in the August 28, 2025 order. Given the appellants’ poor track record of compliance with court orders, it is highly unlikely that they will comply with any terms that I attach to the granting of the stay. . Trop v. Trop
In Trop v. Trop (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal notes that the stay of a court order is an equitable remedy:[12] For these reasons, I dismiss Mr. Trop’s motion for a stay. Mr. Trop should have complied with the production order by October 7, 2024. He did not instigate this stay motion until October 31, 2024. His failure to comply with a court order is further reason to refuse the equitable remedy of a stay: Dickie v. Dickie, 2007 SCC 8, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 346, at paras. 4, 6.
|
