The applicant, Dalila Jarvis, sought a stay of a lower court order granting the respondent, Stephen Jarvis, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and authorizing its sale.
The applicant argued she would suffer irreparable harm and that the original order prejudiced the children's best interests.
The respondent opposed the stay, citing his financial insolvency.
The Court of Appeal, applying the three-part test for a stay, found that while the appeal raised a serious question, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as alternative accommodation was possible and the loss of the home was inevitable.
The balance of convenience favoured the respondent, who faced insolvency if the sale was delayed.
The motion for a stay was dismissed, and the respondent was awarded costs.