Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Applicant sought a stay pending appeal of a redemption order arising from a $552.34 water supply line repair charge on her condominium property

• Failure to demonstrate irreparable harm with clear, unspeculative evidence was the decisive factor in dismissing the stay application

• Procedural fairness concerns were raised regarding the striking of the appeal in the court below due to the absence of interpretation services

• The three-part RJR-MacDonald test for a stay pending appeal was applied, with the applicant failing to satisfy the irreparable harm and balance of convenience prongs

• Permission to appeal the stay decision to a full panel was denied as the matter did not meet any of the four criteria warranting panel review under Rule 14.5(2)

• Escalating litigation costs from numerous unsuccessful court applications significantly increased the amounts owing beyond the original modest charge

The origins of the dispute

The case of Kong v Condominium Corporation No 0313339 arose from a relatively minor charge of $552.34 levied against Zhao Xia Kong for the repair of a water supply line leak in her residential condominium property in Calgary, Alberta. This seemingly small dispute triggered three separate actions in the Court of King's Bench, including the action that ultimately led to a redemption order. Condominium Corporation No. 0313339, the respondent, obtained a redemption order on June 24, 2024, declaring that it held a valid charge over Kong's property to collect on amounts owing, which included unpaid condominium fees, the water supply line repair charges, and applicable legal costs. The redemption period under the order expired on December 24, 2024.

The applicant's attempts to stay enforcement

Following the redemption order, Kong pursued multiple avenues to prevent enforcement against her property. 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. She then attempted to appeal that denial to the same court, but that appeal was dismissed on May 21, 2025. An application to the Court of Appeal of Alberta for an extension of time to further appeal this decision was also denied: 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 her appeal was struck. Kong claimed the appeal was not heard on the merits and was struck because interpretation services were not provided and proposed alternatives were not accepted by the chambers judge.

The consent order that was refused

A notable aspect of the proceedings was the respondent's offer of an interim stay by consent. The condominium corporation had advised the Court that it was instructed not to proceed with further steps in the foreclosure action "at this time" and that it would be agreeable to an interim stay, with the condition that "should their position change, that a hearing be scheduled at that time." The respondent proposed a consent order pending determination of the appeal, preserving its right to give the applicant forty-five days written notice of its intention to begin active enforcement, thereby lifting the stay, and allowing the applicant to proceed with her stay application at that time. Kong disputed this provision and chose not to accept the consent order, proceeding with her stay application instead.

The stay application and the RJR-MacDonald test (2026 ABCA 78)

The Honourable Justice Michelle Crighton heard Kong's application for a stay pending appeal under the well-established three-part test set out in RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General). On the first prong, whether there was a serious question to be determined on appeal, Justice Crighton proceeded as though the low threshold had been met, given Kong's claims of procedural unfairness in having her appeal struck below, though the Court noted that had the respondent challenged this part of the test more vigorously, it would not likely have done so without resorting to the transcript. On the second prong, irreparable harm, the Court found that Kong had failed to meet the onus of demonstrating irreparable harm with clear, unspeculative evidence. There was no evidence before the Court to corroborate her claim of limited financial means or inability to secure alternative housing if the property were sold. The Court further noted the appeal would not be moot if the property was sold, as the underlying issue relating to unpaid condominium fees, charges for the water supply line repair, and applicable legal costs could still be determined if enforcement measures were initiated. On the third prong, the balance of convenience, the Court found it did not favour granting the stay, as 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 permission to appeal to a full panel (2026 ABCA 134)

Kong subsequently sought permission to appeal Justice Crighton's stay decision to a panel of the Court of Appeal under Rule 14.5(2). Justice Crighton noted that such applications are rarely granted and only if there is a compelling reason to require the parties to reargue and three judges of this Court to decide the issues. The Court applied the criteria from Habib v Habib, 2025 ABCA 243 at paras 4-5, which consider whether the impugned decision raises a question of general importance, rests on a reviewable and material issue of law, involves an unreasonable exercise of discretion, or rests on a palpable and overriding error of important facts. Justice Crighton found that Kong had not satisfied any of these criteria. While the matter was of significant importance to Kong personally, it was not of any general importance to the condominium community or to the development of the law in that area. The decision rested on an application of settled law to the factual record and engaged no reviewable and material question of law. The Court also observed that the issues had become increasingly complex only because the applicant had made them complex. Kong's argument that the Court exercised its discretion unreasonably by not allowing her a reasonable opportunity to obtain and file the certified transcript was addressed directly: the Court did not require the transcript to make its decision, as the stay application was dismissed because the applicant had not shown irreparable harm. As for Kong's claim that she was prevented from filing evidence relative to irreparable harm, the Court noted that the applicant had submitted her materials after the deadline, that the evidence filed after the filing deadline was available to her at the time of filing her application and should have been filed in a timely fashion, and that even with this evidence now before the Court, it did not change the view that irreparable harm had not been shown.

The ruling and outcome

Both applications were dismissed in favour of Condominium Corporation No. 0313339. In the first decision dated March 13, 2026 (2026 ABCA 78), Justice Crighton dismissed the stay pending appeal and awarded costs to the respondent under Column 1 plus disbursements, as the application involved non-monetary relief. In the second decision dated April 24, 2026 (2026 ABCA 134), the application for permission to appeal to a full panel was likewise dismissed. The condominium corporation was the successful party in both proceedings. No exact monetary amount was ordered or granted in either decision beyond the costs entitlement under Column 1 plus disbursements awarded in the first decision in favour of the respondent.