Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• A condominium unit owner sought a stay pending appeal after her appeal of a redemption order was struck due to alleged lack of interpretation services.

• The underlying dispute originated from a $552.34 water supply line repair charge that escalated into three separate Court of King's Bench actions.

• Applying the three-part RJR-MacDonald test, the Court assumed the low threshold for a serious question on appeal was met based on procedural fairness concerns.

• Insufficient evidence was presented to demonstrate irreparable harm, as the applicant failed to corroborate claims of limited financial means or inability to secure alternative housing.

• Balance of convenience weighed against the stay, as granting it would jeopardize the respondent's priority to enforce against the applicant's only known asset.

• Costs were awarded to the respondent under Column 1 plus disbursements, as the application involved non-monetary relief.

The origins of the dispute

The case of Kong v Condominium Corporation No 0313339, 2026 ABCA 78, arose from a relatively modest charge of $552.34 levied against Zhao Xia Kong for the repair of a water supply line leak in her residential condominium property. Despite the small amount at the heart of the matter, the dispute spiraled into extensive litigation, spawning three separate actions in the Court of King's Bench of Alberta. The condominium corporation, Condominium Corporation No. 0313339, sought to collect on amounts owing, including condominium fees, the water supply line repair charges, and applicable legal costs through a redemption order granted by an applications judge on June 24, 2024. That order declared the respondent had a valid charge over the applicant's property, and the redemption period expired December 24, 2024.

Procedural history and prior applications

Kong's efforts to challenge the redemption order through the courts were met with repeated setbacks. On November 7, 2024, she applied to the Court of King's Bench for a stay of enforcement of the redemption order, which was denied. Her attempt to appeal that denial to the same court was dismissed on May 21, 2025, and a subsequent application to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time to further appeal that decision was also denied, as noted in Kong v Condominium Corporation No 0313339, 2026 ABCA 3 at para 26. On February 5, 2026, Kong appealed the applications judge's redemption order at the Court of King's Bench, but the appeal was struck. Kong asserted the appeal raised issues of jurisdiction, substantive legal error, and procedural fairness, and that it was not heard on the merits because interpretation services were not provided and proposed alternatives were not accepted by the chambers judge. The transcript of that proceeding, however, was not properly put before the Court of Appeal.

The stay application and the consent offer

Following the striking of her appeal, Kong was offered an interim stay of enforcement of the redemption order by consent of the respondent. The applicant disputed a provision allowing the respondent to provide 45 days' written notice of its intention to bring active enforcement on the redemption order, resulting in this application being initiated by the applicant. Kong sought an immediate stay of all enforcement proceedings against her residential condominium property, including enforcement of the redemption order and five writs of enforcement registered against the property.

Application of the RJR-MacDonald test

The Honourable Justice Michelle Crighton assessed the stay application under the well-established three-part test from RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), which requires the applicant to show that there is a serious question to be determined on appeal, the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted, and the balance of convenience favours granting the stay. On the first prong, Justice Crighton noted that whether there is a serious question to be determined on appeal is a low threshold, met where an appeal is arguable and is neither vexatious nor frivolous. Based on the information provided, she proceeded as if the low threshold had been met, though she cautioned that had the respondent challenged this part of the test more vigorously, she would not likely have done so without resorting to the transcript.

Failure to establish irreparable harm

The application ultimately failed on the second prong. Kong argued that a monetary award could not repair the harm resulting from the sale of the property and that any foreclosure proceeding would render the appeal moot. She referred to evidence demonstrating limited financial means and an inability to secure alternative housing if the property was sold. The respondent countered that there was no evidence that a judicial sale was imminent or that the applicant could not redeem the mortgage if a sale was initiated, that irreparable harm does not arise out of the sale of property unless the property is proven to be unique, and that there was no evidence before the court regarding the applicant's income, assets, impecuniosity, efforts to obtain financing, or inability to secure alternative housing. Justice Crighton found the applicant had not met the onus of demonstrating irreparable harm with clear, unspeculative evidence, as there was no evidence before her to corroborate the claim that the applicant had limited financial means and would be unable to secure alternative housing if the property was sold. The Court further noted the appeal would not be moot if the property was sold, as the underlying issue that prompted the litigation related to unpaid condominium fees, charges for the water supply line repair, and applicable legal costs, and this issue could still be determined if enforcement measures were initiated.

Balance of convenience and the ruling

Because the applicant had not demonstrated irreparable harm, Justice Crighton noted she need not determine the balance of convenience, but found it did not favour granting a stay. While the applicant claimed the respondent would suffer minimal prejudice if the stay was granted, namely a delay in enforcement while the appeal was heard, a stay would jeopardize the respondent's priority to validly enforce against the only known asset of the applicant, and promptness is necessary in foreclosure proceedings, citing Canadian Western Trust Co v Robson, 2003 ABCA 63 at para 13. The application for a stay pending appeal was dismissed in favour of the respondent, Condominium Corporation No. 0313339. The respondent was awarded costs under Column 1 plus disbursements, as the application was for non-monetary relief. No exact monetary amount beyond costs was ordered, as the decision dealt solely with the stay application rather than the substantive merits of the underlying dispute.