NARKIS & NARKIS

The matter of *Narkis & Narkis* concerned an application by the wife for a stay of orders pending an appeal, and a subsequent application by the husband for costs on an indemnity basis. The wife, who was self-represented, sought to stay orders that had been made at a time when she was represented by counsel, and no new evidence was presented in support of the stay application.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the wife had satisfied the principles for granting a stay pending appeal. A secondary issue arose regarding the husband's application for costs on an indemnity basis, and whether such an order was warranted given the wife's conduct and her belief regarding the stay.

In refusing the wife's application for a stay, the court applied the established principles for granting such relief, finding that the wife had not demonstrated a sufficient basis to warrant a stay of the original orders. Regarding costs, while the court found that costs should be granted in favour of the husband, it declined to award them on an indemnity basis. The court reasoned that although the wife's application for a stay was misguided, this did not rise to the level of conduct that would justify an indemnity order.

Consequently, the court ordered that the wife pay the husband's costs of the stay application, fixed at $6,992.30. The wife's subsequent application to stay the payment of these costs was refused.