Ian Flett

The plaintiff, a farm equipment dealer, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant manufacturer from terminating their dealership agreement.

The plaintiff intended to argue before the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Tribunal that the termination violated the Farm Implements Act, but had not yet commenced proceedings there.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that an injunction is an ancillary remedy and cannot be granted where no underlying proceeding exists.

Alternatively, the court held that the requested relief was a mandatory injunction for which the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case, and even under the lower threshold for a prohibitive injunction, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

In a motion arising from an application relating to municipal council conduct, the court addressed refusals made during examinations for discovery and whether the applicant must disclose the identity of individuals financing the litigation.

Respondent councillors had refused to answer questions about matters discussed during closed municipal council meetings under s. 239 of the Municipal Act.

The court held that in camera municipal meetings are not cloaked with confidentiality and that councillors may be required to disclose what transpired, subject only to solicitor-client privilege.

The court also ordered the applicant to disclose the identity of the person or persons who funded the legal retainer, rejecting claims that solicitor-client or litigation privilege protected the identity of the financiers.