The respondent property owner brought a motion to stay an earlier order requiring an engineer to provide the municipality with a draft structural heritage engineering report concerning an unsafe heritage building.
Applying the test for a stay from RJR‑MacDonald, the court accepted that there was a serious issue regarding the municipality’s jurisdiction to require disclosure of the report.
However, the court found that disclosure would not cause irreparable harm because the report was not privileged and any harm would be limited to the respondent’s financial interests if remediation rather than demolition were considered.
The balance of convenience favoured the municipality and the public interest, as the city required all available information to assess safety and potential preservation of the heritage structure.
The motion for a stay was therefore refused.
