The appellant mother brought a motion for a stay pending appeal of an interlocutory order that permitted the respondent father to continue in-person access to their immunocompromised child during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The mother also sought the appointment of counsel for the child.
The court applied the three-part test for a stay pending appeal.
While finding the appeal raised a serious issue, the court concluded the child would not suffer irreparable harm due to the strict safety conditions imposed by the motion judge, and the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.
The mother's motion for a stay and appointment of counsel was dismissed, as was the father's motion to admit fresh evidence.
