C. Brandow

The applicant municipality sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent municipality from making new connections to its water and sanitary sewer systems, pending the resolution of a dispute over an expired services agreement.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured permitting three specific new development connections.

The injunction was granted on consent for all other new connections, with the three specific developments exempted.

The applicant sought an urgent injunction to prevent the respondent physician from performing an apnea test on the patient, who had suffered a severe brain injury, to determine neurological death.

The patient's mother, acting as substitute decision-maker, refused consent for the test and applied to the Consent and Capacity Board to determine if the test constituted 'treatment' under the Health Care Consent Act.

The physician argued the test was an assessment not requiring consent and that the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The court granted the injunction, holding that the Board is the appropriate body to determine at first instance whether an apnea test constitutes 'treatment' requiring consent under the Act, and that the RJR-MacDonald test for an interim injunction was met.

The applicant sought leave under section 246 of the Business Corporations Act to commence a derivative action on behalf of a family corporation against his sons, who were directors and officers.

The applicant alleged the sons breached their fiduciary duties and misappropriated funds.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was not acting in good faith, as the application was primarily brought to gain a tactical advantage in ongoing matrimonial litigation and to remove one of the sons as a director.

Furthermore, the court found the proposed action was not in the best interests of the corporation, as the allegations of misappropriation appeared devoid of merit and other complaints were disproportionate or already addressed by a settlement agreement.