The appellant commercial tenant moved for a stay of an order dismissing his application and dissolving an interim interlocutory injunction, seeking reinstatement of the injunction pending appeal.
Applying the RJR-MacDonald framework for stays, the court held that the moving party failed to establish a serious issue for adjudication because the proposed appeal largely repeated arguments already rejected by the application judge, including objections based on settlement privilege and counsel's participation.
The court deferred to the application judge's evidentiary ruling and interpretation of counsel correspondence as proving a binding settlement agreement.
Because the first branch of the test was not met, the court did not consider irreparable harm or balance of convenience.
The motion was dismissed with no costs.
