The plaintiff grocery store sought an interlocutory injunction preventing the municipality from removing a lay-by used for valet parking on a public street during planned road improvements.
The court applied the test for interlocutory injunctions from RJR-MacDonald and held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured relief.
The alleged causes of action—injurious affection and an easement—could not support the requested injunction, as any remedy for injurious affection lay in damages before the municipal tribunal and no easement could exist over a public highway.
The court also held that potential economic losses from removal of the lay-by were compensable in damages and that municipal authority over public highways weighed heavily against judicial interference.
