Pro Bono Ontario)

The moving parties sought a stay pending appeal of a summary judgment in a mortgage enforcement action that required them to vacate their residential home.

The responding party had obtained a writ of possession after the moving parties defaulted on a loan of $843,750.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the motion judge found the appeal had little merit and the moving parties had not identified a valid defence.

However, weighing the interests of justice, the court was concerned that immediate enforcement would cause serious harm to the moving parties' three children, including one child with autism.

A stay was granted until March 30, 2026 to permit an orderly transition, with no costs awarded given divided success.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Behrouz Salehi’s motion for directions regarding his long-running dispute with the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (APEO).

The court found it had no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, as there was no proceeding pending before it.

The endorsement reviews the procedural history of Mr. Salehi’s litigation, including previous unsuccessful attempts to challenge the dismissal of his action and to set aside prior orders.

The court concluded that there are no further legal avenues available to Mr. Salehi and prohibited him from filing further documents regarding this dispute without leave.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted a conditional stay of a summary judgment and writ of possession in a mortgage enforcement action.

The moving parties, unrepresented at trial, sought a stay pending appeal after summary judgment was granted against them and a writ of possession issued.

The court found that while the original grounds of appeal did not raise a serious question to be tried, a new ground—whether the summary judgment process was appropriate given evidence of conflict of interest and lack of independent legal advice—did raise a serious question.

The court held that denying a stay could cause irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the moving parties.

The stay was granted until July 25, 2025, with a further extension conditional on amending the grounds of appeal.