The respondents sought damages arising from an interim injunction obtained by the applicant, alleging it was an excessive overreach and caused them financial harm by preventing a property sale.
The court found that proper notice was provided for the initial injunction hearing, and it did not proceed on an *ex parte* basis.
While some facts were not disclosed by the applicant, the court determined these omissions were not material to the necessity of the injunction, which was granted to maintain the status quo and protect the public interest in remediating provincially significant wetlands.
The respondents had also consented to the injunction's continuance after the initial period.
As the respondents eventually remediated the property, the merits of the underlying application for a permanent injunction were never judicially determined.
The court dismissed the respondents' motion for damages, exercising its discretion due to the respondents' inequitable conduct and the applicant's role as a public body acting in the public interest.