Injunctions (Re: Owners): Difference between revisions
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
'''Should An Injunction Be Granted?''' | '''Should An Injunction Be Granted?''' | ||
[30] The question I have to determine on this motion is whether a temporary injunction preventing the Respondent from using the common areas of the condominium except for ingress and egress should be granted. The test for granting an injunction is well-known and is set out in R.J.R. MacDonald v. Canada (Attorney General) (1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311 at para 43). The moving party must show: | [30] The question I have to determine on this motion is whether a temporary injunction preventing the Respondent from using the common areas of the condominium except for ingress and egress should be granted. The test for granting an injunction is well-known and is set out in <i>R.J.R. MacDonald v. Canada (Attorney General) (1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311 at para 43)</i><ref name="RJR-MacDonald"/>. The moving party must show: | ||
::a) There is a serious question to be tried; | ::a) There is a serious question to be tried; | ||
::b) The moving party will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; | ::b) The moving party will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
<ref name="Jakacki">Peel Standard Condominium Corporation v. Jakacki, 2020 ONSC 3697 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j89b5>, retrieved on 2020-12-21</ref> | <ref name="Jakacki">Peel Standard Condominium Corporation v. Jakacki, 2020 ONSC 3697 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j89b5>, retrieved on 2020-12-21</ref> | ||
<ref name="RJR-MacDonald">RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 311, <http://canlii.ca/t/1frtw>, retrieved on 2020-12-21</ref> | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 19:44, 21 December 2020
Peel Standard Condominium Corporation v. Jakacki, 2020 ONSC 3697 (CanLII)[1]
[2] The Application is brought to remove the Respondent from the unit under the provisions of the Condominium Act S.O. 1998 c. 19 on the basis that he has engaged in disruptive and violent behavior. That Application will have to be adjudicated by the Courts in due course. In the interim, the Applicant seeks an interlocutory injunction to prevent the Respondent from using the condominium’s common areas except to enter and exit the building.
Should An Injunction Be Granted?
[30] The question I have to determine on this motion is whether a temporary injunction preventing the Respondent from using the common areas of the condominium except for ingress and egress should be granted. The test for granting an injunction is well-known and is set out in R.J.R. MacDonald v. Canada (Attorney General) (1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311 at para 43)[2]. The moving party must show:
- a) There is a serious question to be tried;
- b) The moving party will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted;
- c) The balance of convenience favours the granting of the injunction.
[31] I will deal with each element of the test in turn.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Peel Standard Condominium Corporation v. Jakacki, 2020 ONSC 3697 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j89b5>, retrieved on 2020-12-21
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 311, <http://canlii.ca/t/1frtw>, retrieved on 2020-12-21
