Court applied the three-part test for interlocutory injunctions
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has granted a motion for a stay pending a justice of the peace’s application for judicial review of the Justices of the Peace Review Council’s recommendation that she be removed from office. It found that the applicant met the three-part test for an interlocutory injunction.
In Gibbon v. Justices of the Peace Review Council, 2022 ONSC 5735, Justice of the Peace Anna Gibbon brought a motion for a stay while awaiting judicial review of the recommendation of the Justices of the Peace Review Council (JPRC) that she be removed from office. The JPRC did not oppose the motion provided the judicial review case be settled quickly.
The court granted the motion upon applying the three-part test for an interlocutory injunction laid down in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General):
- There is a serious issue on appeal;
- The applicant will suffer irreparable harm if a stay is not granted; and
- The balance of convenience favours granting a stay.
The court found that the applicant had met these conditions. She raised the proper application of Gladue principles in a professional discipline case, the relevance of credibility findings to determining the penalty, and the level of conduct that can remove a judicial officer. A serious issue only required a reasonable prospect of the appellant’ success, so the application met its low threshold.
The court agreed that losing one’s position as a justice of the peace would cause reputational damage constituting irreparable harm reinstatement – if granted at the Lieutenant Governor in Council’s discretion – could not repair. It also acknowledged that removing the applicant from office pending the outcome of the application for judicial review would worsen her serious health and financial challenges.
Finally, it found that the balance of convenience favoured granting a stay, as the JPRC had not submitted any evidence of harm outweighing the potential harm to the applicant. Because the public interest in the administration of justice could be maintained by proceeding with the application for judicial review quickly, the parties agreed on a timetable for the delivery of application materials and a hearing date, ensuring its immediate disposition.
