Irreparable Harm - Re Meaning of

Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2395 v Wong, 2016 ONSC 8000 (CanLII)

[32] Second, I am satisfied that the moving party has demonstrated that irreparable harm will result if the injunction is not granted. Irreparable harm may include the increased risk of personal injury or assault: see Ivaco Rolling Mills (2004) LP v. LeBlanc, (2005), 144 A.C.W.S. (3d) 82 at paras. 22-24. Irreparable harm also includes psychological harm that is more than transient or trifling: see Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corp. No. 747 v. Korolekh, (2010) 2010 ONSC 4448 (CanLII), 322 D.l.R. (4th) 443 at para. 71.

Jegasundaram v. Vadivale, 2021 ONSC 4505 (CanLII)

[68] Irreparable harm refers to “the nature of the harm suffered rather than its magnitude. It is harm which either cannot be quantified in monetary terms, or which cannot be cured, usually because one party cannot collect damages from the other”: RJR MacDonald, at p. 341.

[69] Irreparable harm may arise from eviction, but there must be some evidence aside from a bald assertion. For example, in Garside v. Jane Oak Apartments Inc. (1998), 27 O.A.C. 308 (H.C.), the appellant was a single mother with small children who was in arrears but would shortly have more than enough funds to make up the arears owing. The case was described as “very unusual”, and the Court of Appeal noted that the eviction of a single mother with small children would be “devastating, rendering her and her family homeless.”

[70] In Hausler v. El Zayat, 2016 ONSC 3370, at paras. 13-18, the Divisional Court refused to stay an eviction order that was issued by the LTB. The LTB had ordered the appellant evicted. He appealed and the landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal. Sachs J. granted the landlord’s motion to quash the appeal and lifted the stay of eviction. The appellant then brought an emergency motion at Divisional Court requesting a stay of the eviction. Pattillo J. of the Divisional Court considered the test for a stay and found that the appellant had not demonstrated that there was a serious issue to be tried, as it was found his appeal was void of merit. Pattillo J. also found no evidence of hardship if evicted. The appellant had not paid rent and had known that eviction was a real possibility for approximately 6 months. The appellant had more than enough time to find new accommodations and organize his affairs. The court found that while it may be inconvenient for the appellant to move, it did not rise to the level of irreparable harm.