The moving parties sought an urgent interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent from selling securities in a real estate development project pursuant to a put option agreement, or alternatively, an order freezing the sale proceeds under Rule 45.02.
The court found that while the moving parties might suffer irreparable harm if the proceeds were repatriated out of Canada, the balance of convenience favoured the respondent, who had a valid third-party offer and faced an impending mortgage expiry.
The court also held that the sale proceeds did not constitute a specific fund under Rule 45.02 as the moving parties' claim was essentially for damages.
The motion was dismissed, with leave to renew if the current sale transaction failed to close.
