Judicial Review - Stay Pending JR. Guillaume v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
In Guillaume v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considered a motion to stay [under CJA s.106] administrative decisions from the PAWS Animal Care Review Board (ACRB), pending a JR:
Test for a Stay and Mootness. Sioux Lookout (Municipality) v Clace
 Because there is no statutory right of appeal of a decision of the ACRB, the automatic stay provision of the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 (SPPA) does not apply.
 The test for a stay requires that the moving party show that:
(a) the application raises a serious question;RJR MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC),  S.C.J. No. 17 paras. 43, 78-80.
(b) irreparable harm will result if the stay is not granted; and
(c) the balance of convenience favours the granting of a stay.
In Sioux Lookout (Municipality) v Clace (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considered (and denied) a JR application to permanently stay an HRTO hearing, here for the unusual reason that undue delay in scheduling was caused (in part) by "lack of resources". In these quotes the court considers the test for stay pending JR:
 The test for a stay pending judicial review is not disputed:. Windrift Adventures Inc. et al. v Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
(i) Is there a serious issue to be tried on the merits;
(ii) Would the applicant suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted; and
(iii) Does the balance of convenience favour granting the stay?
In Windrift Adventures Inc. et al. v Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considered (and granted) a motion for a stay of a 'statement of account' under the PAWS legislation pending a judicial review - here in the course of a multi-proceeding, multi-dog seizure:
The test for granting a stay
 To obtain a stay pending appeal, the applicants must satisfy the three-part test set out in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC),  1 S.C.R. 311, at p. 334, that: (1) there is a serious issue to be tried; (2) the applicants will suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted; and (3) the balance of convenience favours granting the stay.
 It is well-accepted that the factors are not rigid “watertight compartments” or a series of independent hurdles, but are “interrelated in the sense that the overriding question is whether the moving party has shown that it is in the interests of justice to grant a stay.” Strength in meeting one part of the test “may compensate for the weakness of another”: Louis v. Poitras, 2020 ONCA 815 at para. 16.