The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from allegedly passing off their gym business as affiliated with the plaintiffs' boxing and fitness business.
They also sought declarations regarding an alleged website sabotage, orders compelling third‑party production relating to a domain name, and further document production.
Applying the three‑part test for interlocutory injunctions from RJR‑MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), the court found there was a serious issue to be tried but concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the defendants.
The court held that the plaintiffs’ evidentiary record relied heavily on hearsay from a marketing consultant rather than affidavits from individuals with direct knowledge.
The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, including the requests for declaratory and production relief.
