Test for stay pending appeal

Hart v. DuBois, 2011 MBCA 75 deals with a stay pending appeal:

5                     It is, however, necessary to consider that decision sufficiently to permit an assessment of whether it raises a serious question to be argued on the appeal, which is one of the three factors to be taken into account on a stay application.  See Labossiere et al. v. The Estate of Remi Joseph Labossiere, 2011 MBCA 38 (CanLII), 2011 MBCA 38 (at para. 10):
 
….
The general principles applicable to stays require a determination of three matters:
 
1.   is there a serious question to be argued on appeal,
 
2.   would the applicant suffer irreparable harm if the stay is refused, and
 
3.   on a balance of convenience, who would suffer greater harm from the granting or refusal of the stay.
 
(See RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperical [sic] Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; 164 N.R. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 241, and Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd. v. Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers, Local 832 and Labour Board (Man.), 1987 CanLII 79 (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110; 73 N.R. 341; 46 Man.R. (2d) 241.)