The applicant moved for a stay of a prompt payment adjudication order under the Construction Act requiring it to pay approximately $685,000 to the respondent, pending an application for judicial review.
The respondent consented to the stay on the condition that the full amount be paid into court.
The applicant argued against this condition, citing irreparable harm and balance of convenience.
The Divisional Court found that the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm if the money was paid into court, and the balance of convenience strongly favoured requiring payment into court.
The stay was granted on the condition that the applicant pay $700,000 into court.
