News & Blog
Featured News
Injunctions - On the Docket
-
Lawyers sometimes describe cases as being like a law school problem. Sometimes that means that the case raises difficult and complicated questions of law and fact that are nearly impossible to resolve. And sometimes it means that the case raises an obscure issue that seems more like a dispute between property owners in 19th century England. Gallant v Dugard squarely falls into the latter category.
An interlocutory injunction is a valuable tool to maintain the status quo between parties, pending the resolution of litigation. Most disputes over whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted will depend on whether there will be “irreparable harm” if an injunction is not granted. However, as Guelph Taxi v Guelph Police Service shows, it is also critical that the party seeking an injunction give a meaningful undertaking to pay damages if the injunction is granted but the party is ultimately unsuccessful.
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently had a chance to consider the law regarding exclusion clauses in the lease context.
What happens when you take the unusual step of freezing your own assets with a Mareva injunction, but later find you need to access the funds? In Yan v...
The legacy of the movie The Room, Tommy Wiseau’s infamously terrible 2003 cult classic, reached new heights (or lows depending on your point of view) last week when it made its mark on Canadian law in Justice Schabas’ decision in Wiseau Studio, LLC v Harper. A movie lovingly advertised as providing a viewing experience akin to “getting stabbed in the head” prompted copyright litigation and, in the process, has provided a new story of the risks of pursuing an ill-advised litigation strategy through trial.
The popular Canadian pastime of snowmobile litigation has turned up yet another interesting decision (Bombardier Recreational Products Inc v Arctic Cat Inc, 2020 FC 946) – this time on the topic of injunctions. This decision of Justice Roy arose from the moving parties’ attempt to vary an Order issued by the Federal Court in Bombardier Recreational Products Inc v Arctic Cat Inc, 2020 FC 691. As Justice Roy noted, the Order itself was “anything but unusual,” and was representative of injunctions issued in patent cases time and time again. Given this and the existing jurisprudence, it was perhaps a predictable result that the parties were denied any relief.
