|
November 16, 2021
Types of Injunctions
|
October 1, 2021
Orders After Litigation is Over
|
August 11, 2021
Discoverability for Limitation Periods
|
August 5 , 2021
Releases of Claims
|
June 7 , 2021
Language Used Still Matters
|
May 17 , 2021
Serving Uncooperative People
|
April 15 , 2021
Death and After-Life of Contingency Agreements
|
February 22 , 2021
Legal Analysis
|
February 2 , 2021
Costs Clarified at Last
|
January 4 , 2021
Urgent!
|
December 10, 2020
Traps and Confusion in Service Times
|
November 24, 2020
Don't Cut Corners
|
October 2 , 2020
Consent Orders
|
August 4 , 2020
Electronic Hearings
|
July 21, 2020
Ceasing to Act
|
June 29, 2020
Writing Skills
|
June 29, 2020
Keeping Up With the Law
|
June 22, 2020
Assets as a Test for Security for Costs
|
June 19, 2020
What is This Case About?
|
June 11, 2020
Cross-Examining Child Witnesses
|
May 20 , 2020
Formal Offers
|
May 13 , 2020
Vexatious or Self-Represented Litigants
|
January 7, 2020
G.S.T. and Costs
|
December 20 , 2019
Electronically Navigating the
Handbook
|
October 7 , 2019
Questioning is a Bad Word
|
July 29 , 2019
Dismissal for Delay
|
May 7 , 2019
Rule 4.31 Fallacies
|
March 18 , 2019
More Dangers in Oral Fee Agreements
|
February 11 , 2019
Weir-Jones Decisions
|
January 9 , 2019
Discouraging Settlements
|
November 30, 2018
European Court Helps You Twice?
|
November 23 , 2018
Courts Overruling Tribunals
|
November 16 , 2018
New Evidence on Appeal
|
October 30 , 2018
Schedule C's Role
|
July 17 , 2018
Loopholes in Enforcing Settlements
|
May 7 , 2018
Enforcement of Procedure Rules
April 16, 2018
Limping Lawsuits are Often Doomed
April 3 , 2018
Court of Appeal Tips for Summary Decisions
March 19, 2018
Serious Dangers in Chambers
Applications
February 13 , 2018
Court Backlog
December 18 , 2017
Lowering the Status of Courts
September 15 , 2017
Access to Court Decisions
July 4 , 2017
Strictissimi Juris
June 14 , 2017
Why Don't Your Clients Settle?
June 5 , 2017
Gap in Rules About Parties
June 5, 2017
Personal Costs Against Solicitors
April 26, 2017
Clogged Courts
April 11, 2017
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
January 6, 2017
Incomplete Disclosure
December 15, 2016
Mediation
November 23, 2016
Is Contract Interpretation Law? |
|
|
Welcome
Côté’s Commentaries
© J.E. Côté 2016-2021
|
Any litigator who is likely to become involved in injunctions would benefit from reading a recent Queen’s Bench decision. For one thing, injunction issues are often emergencies with limited time for research.
The decision discusses a number of categories and how to distinguish them:
- meeting the necessary requirements for an injunction vs. judicial discretion to refuse an injunction,
- final or permanent vs. interlocutory injunctions,
- whether distinction #2 refers to the test, or refers to the evidence heard or whether there has been a trial (or full determination of the issues),
- mandatory vs. prohibitive injunctions, and how elusive this distinction can be at times,
- how # 2 and # 4 interact.
The decision seems to criticize the need for stronger evidence to get a mandatory injunction. That may be academic, as the Supreme Court of Canada supports that need.
If some of these 5 distinctions are forgotten or not understood, things can seem very confusing. Or lawyers or judges may misstate basic rules.
The case also shows how one can become confused where the injunction sought is not about the substantive rights of either party, but about procedure along the way in a dispute. To take an imaginary example, the basic ongoing dispute is whether the ditch which you have started to dig is on my land, or is protected by an easement. But the fight at the moment is whether to give an injunction against keeping or destroying surveyors’ pins and written records.
The decision is Plains Midstream Can. v. Keyera Pship. 2021 ABQB 871, JCE 2101 05001 (Nov 3).
– Hon. J.E. Côté
The Commentaries are intended to call the attention of lawyers to promising or threatening developments in the law, in civil procedure, in developing their skills, or simply to describe something curious, funny or intriguing.
Justice Côté recently retired from the Court of Appeal of Alberta and currently acts as an arbitrator, mediator, or referee under Rules 6.44 and 6.45 of the Alberta Rules of Court.
He may be contacted through Juriliber at email: info@juriliber.com or phone 780-424-5345.
|
|
|