The applicant retailer sought a temporary stay of a six‑month prohibition order issued under the Smoke Free Ontario Act preventing the sale of tobacco products following two convictions for selling tobacco to minors.
The motion was brought pending appeals and an intended judicial review raising issues of procedural fairness, constitutional validity, and Charter rights.
Applying the RJR‑MacDonald test for interlocutory relief, the court held that no serious issue to be tried was established because the prohibition was mandatory once two convictions occurred and involved no discretionary decision subject to review.
The court further found that the alleged financial losses were purely monetary and did not constitute irreparable harm.
The balance of convenience favoured the public interest in protecting minors from tobacco access.
