The judgment debtors moved under s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act to stay enforcement of a judgment and the scheduled sheriff’s auction of a residential property pursuant to a writ of seizure and sale.
They argued equitable considerations, including a potential future claim for overpayments under earlier share purchase agreements that might support a set‑off against the judgment.
The court held that a stay of execution of a final judgment is an extraordinary remedy exercised only in rare circumstances where enforcement would be oppressive, vexatious, or an abuse of process.
The proposed claim was speculative, likely statute‑barred, unrelated to the subject matter of the judgment, and raised only as a last‑minute attempt to delay enforcement.
The court concluded that enforcement was not oppressive and that a stay would instead cause injustice to the judgment creditors.
