The defendant moved for an urgent stay of an order requiring him to produce certain correspondence, pending his intended motion for leave to appeal.
The defendant argued the documents were protected by privilege, but the court noted he had previously consented to an order requiring production of 'all' correspondence and had failed to properly assert privilege.
Applying the three-part test for an interlocutory injunction, the court found no serious issue to be tried and that the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.
The motion was dismissed with costs.
