The respondent obtained summary judgment against the appellant for unpaid goods.
The appellant sought a stay of the judgment pending the determination of its counterclaim for damages related to a previous delivery of allegedly defective goods.
The motion judge refused the stay, finding the claims were not closely connected.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge misapprehended the evidence, as the claims were closely connected through ongoing negotiations.
A stay was granted on the condition that the appellant pay the judgment amount, interest, and estimated trial costs into court.
