Background:
- Issue: Whether Natalie Mouralian should receive relief from forfeiture of her $70,000 deposit following a failed real estate transaction.
- Lower Court Decision: Superior Court denied relief from forfeiture (2022 ONSC 2925). The Court of Appeal dismissed Mouralian’s appeal (2024 ONCA 342).
Procedural History:
- Mouralian notified Groleau’s counsel of her intent to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Despite this, the deposit was transferred to Groleau before the 60-day deadline for seeking leave expired.
Motion for Stay:
- Motion Denied: Lauwers J.A. denied Mouralian’s motion for a stay of the Court of Appeal’s decision pending her application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Legal Principles for Stay Pending Appeal:
- Serious Issue to be Adjudicated: The Supreme Court grants leave only in cases of public or national importance.
- Irreparable Harm: Applicant must show potential for irreparable harm if the stay is not granted.
- Balance of Convenience: Consideration of which party would suffer more harm from granting or denying the stay.
Court’s Reasoning:
- Merits of the Appeal: The issues raised by Mouralian do not meet the stringent criteria for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
- Factual vs. Legal Issues: Mouralian’s arguments are primarily factual and do not present significant legal questions likely to interest the Supreme Court.
- Mental State Argument: The motion judge and the Court of Appeal found no evidence of inequality of bargaining power or that Groleau knew of Mouralian’s alleged mental incapacity during the contract signing.
Conclusion:
- The Court of Appeal concluded that Mouralian’s chances of obtaining leave from the Supreme Court are remote and dismissed her motion for a stay.
- The document does not specify any additional monetary awards beyond the retention of the $70,000 deposit by Groleau.
