The appeal concerned whether a stay of labour board proceedings should issue pending determination of a constitutional challenge to legislation authorizing the imposition of a first collective agreement.
The Court held that a stay of proceedings and an interlocutory injunction are governed by the same framework: a serious question to be tried, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience.
In constitutional litigation, the balance of convenience must include the public interest, particularly where relief would restrain a statutory authority from performing public duties.
The Court rejected a literal presumption that legislation challenged under the Charter is presumed constitutionally valid and in full force for interlocutory purposes.
It restored the motion judge's refusal of a stay and held the appellate court erred in exercising fresh discretion on allegedly new facts that did not substantially affect the original decision.
