Judith Sidlofsky Stoffman

The applicant, Guelph Taxi Inc., brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restore its accessible taxi cab service license, which had been revoked by the Guelph Chief of Police and upheld by the Guelph Police Services Board.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to provide a proper undertaking as to damages, did not establish irreparable harm that could not be quantified or compensated by damages, and that the balance of convenience favored not granting the injunction, partly due to the applicant's delay and history of by-law infractions.

The applicant, Guelph Taxi, sought an interlocutory injunction to restore its accessible taxi licence pending an application for judicial review of the Police Chief's decision to revoke it.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to provide a proper undertaking as to damages under Rule 40.03, failed to establish irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages, and that the balance of convenience favoured the respondents due to the applicant's delay and public safety concerns.