|
Injunctions - Standard of Review. 40 Days for Life v. Dietrich
In 40 Days for Life v. Dietrich (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court set out the SOR for an appeal of an interlocutory injunction:[22] On an appeal from an interlocutory injunction, unless the motion judge erred in principle or was clearly wrong, the appellate court must defer to the motion judge’s discretion: see Easyfinancial Services Inc. v. Ezmoney Tario Inc., 2018 ONSC 1542 (Div. Ct.), at para. 9. . Krieser v. Garber
In Krieser v. Garber (Ont CA, 2020) the Court of Appeal set out the appellate standard of review for injunctions:[46] The appellants acknowledge that the grant of an injunction is a discretionary decision. The court will only interfere with the exercise of discretion if it was based on an error of law (determined on a correctness standard), a palpable and overriding error of fact, the consideration of irrelevant factors or the omission of factors that ought to have been considered, or if the decision was unreasonable in the sense that it is not compatible with the judicial exercise of discretion: Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Novopharm Ltd., 2005 FCA 390, 44 C.P.R. (4th) 326, at para. 4; Bellini Custom Cabinets v. Delight Textiles Limited, 2007 ONCA 413, 225 O.A.C. 375, at para. 44.
|
