The test for securing an interlocutory injunction was set out in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311 as follows:

1. Is there a serious issue to be tried?
2. Will the applicant suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is refused?
3. Does the balance of convenience favour granting an injunction?

The purpose of an interlocutory injunction is to improve the chances of the court being able to do justice after a determination of the merits at the trial. At the interlocutory stage, the court must therefore assess whether granting or withholding an injunction is more likely to produce a just result (FLS Transportation Services Inc. v Charger Logistics Inc., 2016 ONSC 3652 (CanLII), paragraph 13)

If damages will be an adequate remedy for the plaintiff at trial, there are no grounds for interference with the defendant’s freedom of action by the grant of an injunction (FLS Transportation Services Inc. v Charger Logistics Inc., 2016 ONSC 3652 (CanLII), paragraph 13)

The court will consider whether the moving party has established an urgency of such importance that there is no alternative way to proceed in order to counter the harm that might be or is actually occurring (FLS Transportation Services Inc. v Charger Logistics Inc., 2016 ONSC 3652 (CanLII), paragraph 15)

A claim by the plaintiff for a permanent injunction in the statement of claim is a prerequisite for the granting of an interlocutory injunction  (Laplante (c.o.b. Pascalina’s Dance Studio) v. Hennessy-Craibe (c.o.b. Beat Central Dance Co.), [2011] O.J. No. 4298, paragraphs 20 and 30)

Serious Issue

The moving party must show that its claim is almost certain to succeed (FLS Transportation Services Inc. v Charger Logistics Inc., 2016 ONSC 3652 (CanLII), paragraph 18).

Irreparable Harm

Irreparable 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 (FLS Transportation Services Inc. v Charger Logistics Inc., 2016 ONSC 3652 (CanLII), paragraph 58).

The Court must be satisfied that the moving party’s losses are incalculable (FLS Transportation Services Inc. v Charger Logistics Inc., 2016 ONSC 3652 (CanLII), paragraph 60)

Evidence of irreparable harm must be clear and not speculative (Optilinx Systems Inc. v. Fiberco Solutions Inc. et al. 123 O.R. (3d) 602, paragraph 11)

Balance of Convenience

The assessment of the balance of convenience requires the determination of which of the two parties will suffer the greater harm from the granting or refusal of an interlocutory decision, pending a decision on the merits (FLS Transportation Services Inc. v Charger Logistics Inc., 2016 ONSC 3652 (CanLII), paragraph 63)

In considering the balance of convenience, it is appropriate to reconsider the comparative strength of the parties’ cases. If the moving party’s case seems weak, the undoubted convenience of an injunction may not balance the inconvenience of the defendant suffering the interference with his or her rights based on a doubtful case (Optilinx Systems Inc. v. Fiberco Solutions Inc. et al. 123 O.R. (3d) 602, paragraph 14).