2 total
Trial court retains concurrent jurisdiction to stay orders pending appeal.
During a family law proceeding, a non-party corporation sought clarification regarding whether earlier disclosure and examination orders were stayed pending a forthcoming motion to set them aside.
The court considered whether it retained jurisdiction to grant or clarify a stay despite an appeal having been initiated, examining conflicting authorities interpreting Rule 63.02.
Adopting the view that the amended rule grants concurrent jurisdiction to both the trial court and the appeal court to grant a stay, the court held it retained jurisdiction.
Applying a balance of convenience analysis, the court found that requiring the non-party to comply with onerous disclosure obligations before the motion was determined would cause disproportionate prejudice.
The court ordered a stay of the prior orders until the motion to set them aside or change them is decided.
Appeal quashed for want of jurisdiction as the order directing payment into court was interlocutory.
The appellant corporation appealed an order requiring moneys to be paid into court in the context of matrimonial proceedings.
The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, finding the order was interlocutory because it did not finally determine the appellant's interest in the funds.
The appellant was granted an extension of time to seek leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.
