Source: http://www.isthatlegal.ca/index.php?name=Injunctions-and-Stays
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:09:50+00:00

Document:
Injunctions are non-monetary court orders that govern behaviour of parties. Stays are orders that suspend earlier orders, typically during appeals or judicial review. Most legal activity in this area is with respect to interlocutory injunctions, which tend to govern the parties' behaviour pending the outcome of the full injunction case.
. 1711811 Ontario Ltd. (AdLine) v. Buckley Insurance Brokers Ltd.
In 1711811 Ontario Ltd. (AdLine) v. Buckley Insurance Brokers Ltd. (Ont CA, 2014) the court took the oppourtunity to explain the differences between the different types of injunctions: interim, interlocutory, mandatory and permanent.
. Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc.
 The decision to grant an interlocutory injunction is a discretionary one and entitled to a high degree of deference (Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Metropolitan Stores Ltd., 1987 CanLII 79 (SCC),  1 S.C.R. 110, at pp. 155-56). In this case, I see no reason to interfere.
 Injunctions are equitable remedies. “The powers of courts with equitable jurisdiction to grant injunctions are, subject to any relevant statutory restrictions, unlimited” (Ian Spry, The Principles of Equitable Remedies (9th ed. 2014), at p. 333). Robert Sharpe notes that “[t]he injunction is a flexible and drastic remedy. Injunctions are not restricted to any area of substantive law and are readily enforceable through the court’s contempt power” (Injunctions and Specific Performance (loose-leaf ed.), at para. 2.10).
 An interlocutory injunction is normally enforceable until trial or some other determination of the action. Interlocutory injunctions seek to ensure that the subject matter of the litigation will be “preserved” so that effective relief will be available when the case is ultimately heard on the merits (Jeffrey Berryman, The Law of Equitable Remedies (2nd ed. 2013), at pp. 24-25). Their character as “interlocutory” is not dependent on their duration pending trial.
 RJR — MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC),  1 S.C.R. 311, sets out a three-part test for determining whether a court should exercise its discretion to grant an interlocutory injunction: is there a serious issue to be tried; would the person applying for the injunction suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted; and is the balance of convenience in favour of granting the interlocutory injunction or denying it. The fundamental question is whether the granting of an injunction is just and equitable in all of the circumstances of the case. This will necessarily be context-specific.
 Google does not dispute that there is a serious claim. Nor does it dispute that Equustek is suffering irreparable harm as a result of Datalink’s ongoing sale of the GW1000 through the Internet. And it acknowledges, as Fenlon J. found, that it inadvertently facilitates the harm through its search engine which leads purchasers directly to the Datalink websites.
 Google argues, however, that the injunction issued against it is not necessary to prevent that irreparable harm, and that it is not effective in so doing. Moreover, it argues that as a non-party, it should be immune from the injunction. As for the balance of convenience, it challenges the propriety and necessity of the extraterritorial reach of such an order, and raises freedom of expression concerns that it says should have tipped the balance against granting the order. These arguments go both to whether the Supreme Court of British Columbia had jurisdiction to grant the injunction and whether, if it did, it was just and equitable to do so in this case.
See also Berryman, at pp. 57-60; Sharpe, at paras. 6.260 to 6.265.
 In other words, where a non-party violates a court order, there is a principled basis for treating the non-party as if it had been bound by the order. The non-party’s obligation arises “not because [it] is bound by the injunction by being a party to the cause, but because [it] is conducting [itself] so as to obstruct the course of justice” (MacMillan Bloedel, at para. 27, quoting Seaward v. Paterson,  1 Ch. 545 (C.A.), at p. 555).
. . . a non-party corporation that warehouses and ships goods for a defendant manufacturing company might be ordered on an interim injunction to freeze the defendants’ goods and refrain from shipping them. That injunction could affect orders received from customers around the world. Could it sensibly be argued that the Court could not grant the injunction because it would have effects worldwide? The impact of an injunction on strangers to the suit or the order itself is a valid consideration in deciding whether to exercise the Court’s jurisdiction to grant an injunction. It does not, however, affect the Court’s authority to make such an order.
 Norwich orders are analogous and can also be used to compel non-parties to disclose information or documents in their possession required by a claimant (Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners,  A.C. 133 (H.L.), at p. 175). Norwich orders have increasingly been used in the online context by plaintiffs who allege that they are being anonymously defamed or defrauded and seek orders against Internet service providers to disclose the identity of the perpetrator (York University v. Bell Canada Enterprises (2009), 2009 CanLII 46447 (ON SC), 311 D.L.R. (4th) 755 (Ont. S.C.J.)). Norwich disclosure may be ordered against non-parties who are not themselves guilty of wrongdoing, but who are so involved in the wrongful acts of others that they facilitate the harm. In Norwich, this was characterized as a duty to assist the person wronged (p. 175; Cartier International AG v. British Sky Broadcasting Ltd.,  1 All E.R. 700 (C.A.), at para. 53). Norwich supplies a principled rationale for granting injunctions against non-parties who facilitate wrongdoing (see Cartier, at paras. 51-55; and Warner-Lambert Co. v. Actavis Group PTC EHF, 144 B.M.L.R. 194 (Ch.)).
 The same logic underlies Mareva injunctions, which can also be issued against non-parties. Mareva injunctions are used to freeze assets in order to prevent their dissipation pending the conclusion of a trial or action (Mareva Compania Naviera S.A. v. International Bulkcarriers S.A.,  2 Lloyd’s Rep. 509 (C.A.); Aetna Financial Services Ltd. v. Feigelman, 1985 CanLII 55 (SCC),  1 S.C.R. 2). A Mareva injunction that requires a defendant not to dissipate his or her assets sometimes requires the assistance of a non-party, which in turn can result in an injunction against the non-party if it is just and equitable to do so (Stephen Pitel and Andrew Valentine, “The Evolution of the Extra-territorial Mareva Injunction in Canada: Three Issues” (2006), 2 J. Priv. Int’l L. 339, at p. 370; Vaughan Black and Edward Babin, “Mareva Injunctions in Canada: Territorial Aspects” (1997), 28 Can. Bus. L.J. 430, at pp. 452-53; Berryman, at pp. 128-31). Banks and other financial institutions have, as a result, been bound by Mareva injunctions even when they are not a party to an underlying action.
 Google’s next argument is the impropriety of issuing an interlocutory injunction with extraterritorial effect. But this too contradicts the existing jurisprudence.
 The British Columbia courts in these proceedings concluded that because Google carried on business in the province through its advertising and search operations, this was sufficient to establish the existence of in personam and territorial jurisdiction. Google does not challenge those findings. It challenges instead the global reach of the resulting order. Google suggests that if any injunction is to be granted, it should be limited to Canada (or google.ca) alone.
I note that the courts of many other jurisdictions have found it necessary, in the context of orders against Internet abuses, to pronounce orders that have international effects. Several such cases are cited in the arguments of [International Federation of Film Producers Associations and International Federation of the Phonographic Industry], including APC v. Auchan Telecom, 11/60013, Judgment (28 November 2013) (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris); McKeogh v. Doe (Irish High Court, case no. 20121254P); Mosley v. Google, 11/07970, Judgment (6 November 2013) (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris); Max Mosley v. Google (see “Case Law, Hamburg District Court: Max Mosley v. Google Inc. online: Inform’s Blog https://inforrm.wordpress.com/2014/02/05/case-law-hamburg-district-court-max-mosley-v-google-inc-google-go-down-again-this-time-in-hamburg-dominic-crossley/) and ECJ Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González, C-131/12 , CURIA.
... to be effective, even within Canada, Google must block search results on all of its websites.
.... the order in this case is an interlocutory one, and one that can be varied by the court. In the unlikely event that any jurisdiction finds the order offensive to its core values, an application could be made to the court to modify the order so as to avoid the problem.
 If Google has evidence that complying with such an injunction would require it to violate the laws of another jurisdiction, including interfering with freedom of expression, it is always free to apply to the British Columbia courts to vary the interlocutory order accordingly. To date, Google has made no such application.
. 1465152 Ontario Limited v. Amexon Development Inc.
 First, the Landlord contends that in Pointe East Windsor Limited v. Windsor (City), 2014 ONCA 467 (CanLII), 374 D.L.R. (4th) 380, at para. 17, this court held that equitable relief, such as a permanent injunction, is only available where damages are an inadequate remedy. The Landlord submits that the leased premises are not unique, so an award of compensatory damages to the Tenant would serve as an adequate remedy. However, in Pointe East Windsor Limited, the issue of remedy arose in the context of an action for breach of contract, not where the holder of an interest in property, such as the Tenant, was alleging a wrongful interference with a proprietary interest.
Where the plaintiff complains of an interference with property rights, injunctive relief is strongly favored. This is especially so in the case of direct infringement in the nature of trespass.
 The Landlord relies on the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Evergreen Building Ltd. v. IBI Leaseholds Ltd., 2005 BCCA 583 (CanLII), 50 B.C.L.R. (4th) 250, leave to appeal to S.C.C. granted,  S.C.C.A. No. 43, in support of its position that the application judge should not have granted a permanent injunction. That case also involved an argument by a landlord that it should be permitted to re-enter leased premises in order to demolish a building for redevelopment even though the lease did not contain a demolition clause and the tenant had not breached the lease. The British Columbia Court of Appeal, at para. 31 of its reasons, held that the chambers judge had erred in granting a permanent injunction because he had treated the remedies related to a lease and a contract as “water-tight compartments”, leading him to ignore the issue of whether damages were an adequate remedy in the circumstances. The British Columbia Court of Appeal re-instated the interim injunction restraining the landlord from breaching the covenant of quiet enjoyment and remitted the issue of the permanent injunction back to the British Columbia Supreme Court for consideration of the equities between the parties.
 In the present case, the application judge turned his mind to the adequacy of an award of damages and then went on to observe, correctly, that “[i]njunctions remain a powerful arrow to preserve property rights and to restrain tortious misconduct.” The Landlord sought to trespass by seeking to enter the leased premises without any authority, terminate the Lease and demolish the leased premises. Under those circumstances it fell within the discretion of the application judge to restrain the Landlord from committing such a trespass, and I see no error in his exercise of that discretion.
 Second, the Landlord argues that the Tenant was seeking an injunction for an improper purpose, namely to enhance its bargaining position with the Landlord. Such a motivation, according to the Landlord, operated as a reason to deny granting an injunction. Certainly some courts have refused to grant an injunction where they have found that the request for injunctive relief was being used to force a hard bargain rather than protecting the actual enjoyment of bona fide property rights: Michael Santarsieri Inc. v. Unicity Mall Ltd. (1999), 1999 CanLII 5082 (MB CA), 181 D.L.R. (4th) 136 (Man. C.A.), at para. 25 and Denovan v. Lee (1989), 65 D.L.R. (4th) 103 (B.C.C.A.), at p. 106. In the present case, however, the application judge made no such finding of improper purpose on the part of the Tenant and, by contrast, found that the Landlord had engaged in tortious misconduct.
 In addition, the application judge balanced the parties’ respective interests and tailored the scope of the injunction to that which was necessary to restrain the specific unlawful conduct of the Landlord – i.e. its intention to trespass onto the leased premises pursuant to the Notice to Vacate in order to terminate the tenancy. His endorsement clearly states that the injunction would not protect the Tenant from the consequences of future breaches or future application of the Lease, nor did it address the issue of the right of the Tenant to renew the Lease upon the expiry of its current term on March 31, 2016.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.