Louis v Poitras, 2020 ONCA 815

Published date25 January 2021
Subject MatterLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Coronavirus (COVID-19), Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Operational Impacts and Strategy
Law FirmMcLeish Orlando LLP
AuthorMr Dale Orlando and Ryan Marinacci

The Court of Appeal for Ontario in Louis v Poitras, 2020 ONCA 815 recently granted the Plaintiffs' motion for a stay of the Divisional Court's Order in which it allowed the Defendants' appeal from the motion judge's decision to strike the jury notice in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court of Appeal also ordered that the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal from the Divisional Court's Order and the appeal on the merits be heard on an expedited basis given that the trial in this action was scheduled to commence on February 22, 2021.

The Court considered the three-part test on a motion to stay an order pending appeal pursuant to R63.02(1)(b) as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC):

  • is there a serious question to be tried (i.e., to be determined on the appeal,
  • will the moving party suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted, and
  • does the balance of convenience favour granting the stay?

Here, the Court found that all three factors supported a stay of the Order.

On the seriousness of the question to be tried, the Court found that the Plaintiffs had raised a very serious question as to whether there was a basis for the Divisional Court to conclude as it did that the motion judge had acted "arbitrarily" in granting the motion to strike the jury notice.

The Court concluded that the findings of the Divisional Court could not be reconciled with the motion judge's analysis. The Divisional Court had found that that the motion judge lacked a foundation to find that delay created by the pandemic had caused any prejudice. It had also concluded that the mere fact of delay in the absence of information about this particular action could not justify granting a stay.

The Court disagreed and noted that the motion judge had indicated that only a single jury trial could be heard at a time in the relevant courthouse, that it was unknown when or how a jury trial could be heard in this action and that non-jury trials of less than three weeks could be heard within six months. In addition, and contrary to the view of the Divisional Court on this issue, the Court conclusively held that "Delay in obtaining a date for a civil jury trial can, by itself, constitute prejudice and justify striking out a jury notice."

The Plaintiffs had further satisfied the "serious question" threshold imposed by Sault Dock Co Ltd v Sault Ste Marie (City), 1972 CanLII 572 (ON CA), in the context of a motion for...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT