The respondent father brought a motion for a stay of enforcement pending an appeal of a temporary order that changed primary parenting responsibility of the parties' 7-year-old daughter to the applicant mother.
The father argued the motion judge erred in refusing an adjournment, lacked jurisdiction, and failed to maintain the status quo.
The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the motion judge's refusal of an adjournment was entitled to deference, the jurisdictional argument lacked merit under rule 15(28), and compliance with the temporary order would not cause irreparable harm while the balance of convenience favoured leaving the child in the mother's care pending trial.
