The appellant brought a motion to vary the order of the motion judge to grant a stay of the Tribunal's decision pending appeal.
The Divisional Court found that the motion judge offered no reasons regarding irreparable harm and thus his decision was not entitled to deference.
Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Court found a serious issue to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, noting the member had practiced without restriction since 2005.
The motion was granted and a stay was ordered until the appeal hearing date.
