Simon's Megalomaniacal Legal Resources

Appeals - Stay Pending Appeal - Where Dismissal Appealed

. Parikh v. Walmart Canada Corporation et al. [inutility of stay of dismissal]

In Parikh v. Walmart Canada Corporation et al. (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal considers interlocutory motions within a labour JR, here where the JR was brought against an OLRB decision that refused "to extend the time for him to appeal an order dated November 30, 2022 made by a Ministry of Labour Inspector under the Occupational Health and Safety Act".

Here the court comments on the inutility of staying a dismissal order:

A Stay of Execution

[10] When lawyers speak of a “stay” of an order, they are using a shortform. The proper phrase is actually a “stay of execution” of the order. The stay prevents the order from being “executed” or “acted upon” or “carried out.” A stay is used to prevent the execution of the order from causing irreversible harm while an appeal or a review of the order is under way. For example, a tenant’s eviction order may be stayed so that the tenant can have the order reviewed without being evicted first.

[11] The orders being reviewed in this case are refusals to extend the time for Mr. Parikh to appeal to the OLRB. No relief was granted. There is no order to be executed or put into place. Staying a refusal to extend time does not extend the time. Mr. Parikh needs to succeed on the judicial review application to have the OLRB’s order reversed. Staying an order refusing to extend time does not do anything.

[12] Mr. Parikh submits that he is being subjected to harassment and embarrassment in the community because his OLRB appeal was dismissed. He submits that a stay would help him respond to critics.

[13] I do not accept that argument. Making an order that has no substantive content and no effect has no bearing on any harassment or embarrassment being suffered by Mr. Parikh.