The appellant appealed an interlocutory injunction enforcing a restrictive covenant in a commercial lease that prevented the landlord from leasing space to competitors of the respondent's payday loan business.
The appellant argued the motion judge erred in interpreting the lease, finding the appellant was not a financing institution, assessing irreparable harm, and ignoring delay.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the contractual interpretation and no error in principle in the exercise of discretion regarding the injunction.
