|
Stays - Miscellaneous. Lithium Royalty Corporation v. Orion Resource Partners
In Lithium Royalty Corporation v. Orion Resource Partners (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considers a moderately complex stay matter, initiated as a motion for stay pending appeal. Most 'stays pending appeal' seek to prevent enforcement of already-made lower court orders, but stays can also apply to proceedings - as here. Here the court considers staying an as yet incomplete (bifurcated) trial, and also the appeal itself.
Stays are adjudged on the RJR-McDonald interlocutory injunction test, and the quotes below address that test regarding staying the appeal itself pending completion of the trial (the reverse of the normal 'stay pending appeal' scenario):B. SHOULD A STAY OF THE APPEAL BE GRANTED?
[75] In my view, the appeal brought by the Orion Respondents from the judgment of the trial judge — appeal COA-23-CV-1029 — should be stayed pending the outcome of the trial. LRC requested that I make this order, and it is in the interests of justice to do so.
[76] This court recognized in Korea Data Systems (USA), Inc. v. Amazing Technologies Inc., 2012 ONCA 756, at para. 19, that the “public interest in the fair, well-ordered and timely disposition of litigation, and the effective use of scare public resources” is an appropriate consideration in identifying the interests of justice. Multiplicity of proceedings, including multiple appeals from bifurcated proceedings, should be avoided, where possible: Korea Data Systems (USA), at para. 23; Toronto (City) v. 1291547 Ontario Inc., (2001) 2001 CanLII 7244 (ON CA), 148 O.A.C. 212 (C.A.) at para. 13. In my view, it is in the interests of justice to have both the liability issues and any issues that may arise from the remedies hearing in one appeal. Doing so will avoid duplication of effort and expense, something to be avoided given that the factual framework for this case will require close examination on appeal and the business model utilized is complex. Two appeal panels should not have to undertake these tasks, and lower appeal costs will be incurred. Given these considerations and the fact that I see no compelling reason for hiving off the appeals on the issue of liability, I am ordering that the appeal be stayed.
|
