Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The appeal involved an application by Steven Kings to stay a March 19, 2025 order requiring him to vacate and remove property from land owned by Paul McDonagh.

• The Court accepted that there was a serious issue to be tried concerning the legal nature of the relationship between Kings and McDonagh.

• Kings failed to establish irreparable harm, as property loss is generally compensable in damages and the remaining property was uncertain.

• The balance of convenience weighed against granting the stay, especially due to Kings’ delay in acting despite prior notice and court deadlines.

• The restraining order against Kings and lack of practical means to retrieve property further complicated the request for interim relief.

• The Court concluded a stay was not just and equitable in the circumstances and dismissed the application.

Facts and procedural background

Steven Kings applied for a stay pending appeal of a March 19, 2025 order issued in an action brought by Paul McDonagh. The order required Kings to remove his property from McDonagh’s land in Lacombe County and prohibited him from residing there. A related earlier order, dated December 11, 2024 in a separate proceeding, had directed McDonagh to clean up his property to comply with County bylaws. Kings had been living in a camper trailer on the land and storing vehicles and other items there. He acknowledged that much of the property covered by the County order was his.

The March 19 order set a March 31 deadline for Kings to remove his belongings and leave the property. Kings argued the matter was essentially a landlord-tenant dispute and that he had not been given proper notice of eviction. He sought to stay the March 19 order so he could pursue an appeal.

Serious issue to be tried

The Court accepted that the legal relationship between Kings and McDonagh was contested. Kings claimed he was a tenant, while McDonagh stated that Kings was allowed to store items temporarily but had breached their agreement by not maintaining the area, failing to pay fees, and living on the property without consent. Although the record was limited and the pleadings lacked precision, the Court held that Kings raised a serious issue to be tried, satisfying the first prong of the stay test from RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (AG).

Irreparable harm

Kings asserted he faced irreparable harm, including potential loss of possessions with sentimental and practical value. However, the Court was not satisfied that irreparable harm was established. Evidence showed McDonagh had hired someone to dismantle and remove Kings’ property, and it was unclear what—if anything—remained. The Court also noted that property loss is usually compensable in damages and, in the absence of clear evidence of what was left, the harm did not meet the irreparable threshold.

Balance of convenience

The Court held that the balance of convenience did not favour a stay. Kings had been aware of the County’s demands since at least September 2024, but had failed to take meaningful steps to comply. Despite having several months and some extensions, he did not remove his property or vacate the site. The Court found that Kings’ inaction significantly contributed to the current circumstances. The Court also considered that McDonagh was acting under pressure to comply with the County’s order and that staying the March 19 order would not prevent the harm Kings complained of, as McDonagh’s actions were not explicitly authorized by that order.

The Court declined to issue any temporary injunctive relief. Kings was under a restraining order issued April 14, 2025, preventing him from being within 200 metres of the property, and had no clear means or funds to retrieve the remaining items using a third party or enforcement agent. These factors weighed against granting relief.

Conclusion

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the application. The March 19, 2025 order remains in effect, and Kings is not permitted to return to the property. The Court emphasized that a stay was not just or equitable given the circumstances, Kings’ delay, and the broader need to enforce municipal bylaw compliance. Paul McDonagh was the successful party.