Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content






Date: 20001219


Docket: T-1729-00



BETWEEN:

     DYNAMEX CANADA INC., having a place of business at 244

     Cree Crescent, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3J 3W1, and its head office

     at 2630 Skymark Avenue, Suite 610, Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5A4

     Applicant

     - and -

     ADELE VICTORIA MAMONA

     19-225 Tyndall Avenue

     Winnipeg (Manitoba) R2R 0Z3

     RANDOLPH WILLIAM HEPNER

     Box 10, Grp 7, RR#1

     Winnipeg (Manitoba) R3J 3W1

     ROBERT PHILIP CYR

     421 Strathmillan Road

     Winnipeg (Manitoba) R3J 2V8

     Respondents



     REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

BLAIS J.


[1]      This is an application on behalf of the applicant made in writing under Rule 369 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, for an appeal in respect of the decision of Ms. Roza Aronovitch, Prothonotary, issued on November 13, 2000, dismissing without costs the motion of Dynamex for a stay of execution in respect of the decision of J.F.R. Taylor, referee, under Part III of the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2, issued on August 9, 2000, ordering that the funds currently held in trust by Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) for the respondents, Adele Victoria Mamona, Randolph William Hepner and Robert Philip Cyr, pursuant to orders of inspector Karen Exell, be disbursed to them upon the expiry of thirty days immediately following the receipt of the decision, until this Honourable Court renders its decision on the application for judicial review filed by the applicant on September 15, 2000.

[2]      I have carefully reviewed the written submissions by both parties.

[3]      To succeed, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Court that there is a serious issue to be tried, that the applicant will suffer an irreparable harm if the stay is not granted and that the balance of convenience favours the applicant.

[4]      In my view, the applicant failed to provide evidence that any harm that could be suffered by the applicant cannot be adequately compensated by damages. Just suggesting a risk is not enough to constitute irreparable harm.

[5]      Therefore, there is no valid reason to review the decision of Prothonotary Aronovitch.

[6]      The appeal of the decision of Prothonotary Aronovitch is dismissed.




                         Pierre Blais

                         Judge


OTTAWA, ONTARIO

December 19, 2000

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.