What are the legal requirements for a stay pending appeal?

The legal requirements for a stay pending appeal is well settled and is not in issue. As the appeal panel put it in Law Society of Upper Canada v. Igbinosun, 2006 ONLSAP 10 at paras. 8-10: There is no automatic stay on the filing of an appeal. The party seeking the stay bears the burden of establishing that it should be granted. It is well settled that, in order to successfully demonstrate that a stay should be granted, the applicant must establish that: (a) the appeal raises a serious issue to be tried; (b) the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted; and (c) the balance of convenience favours the imposition of the stay …. The jurisprudence provides some additional content to each of these criteria: (a) The Appeal Panel hearing the stay application is not engaged in determining the merits of the appeal proper. The applicant need not demonstrate that the appeal will likely succeed, only that it raises a serious issue. This question is sometimes framed as whether the appeal is an “arguable” one. (b) Irreparable harm does not refer to mere inconvenience. It is harm that cannot be cured even by the ultimate success of the appeal. It is the applicant, not clients or third parties, whose irreparable harm is referred to. Harm to clients or other third parties is relevant to whether the balance of convenience otherwise favours the imposition of the stay. (c) The balance of convenience engages a myriad of considerations. The public interest figures prominently in this analysis: …. For example, where members of the public will likely be further victimized or prejudiced should the motion be allowed, the public interest favours dismissal of the motion. (d) Although some consideration must be given to whether the appeal raises a serious issue, the Appeal Panel proceeds on the assumption (particularly in assessing the balance of convenience) that the findings under appeal are correct: …. Of course, this assumption cannot be too rigidly applied, so as to effectively foreclose any successful stay motions. (e) The three criteria are not “watertight compartments.” Ultimately, the issue is whether the “interests of justice” do or do not justify the issuance of the stay … (f) A stay may be granted on terms that safeguard the public interest, and thereby affect the balance of convenience. (Citations omitted)