M. Sampson

The plaintiff railway company brought an ex parte motion for an interim injunction to remove protesters blocking its main rail line.

The protesters were acting in solidarity with the Wet'suwet'en in British Columbia.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found a serious issue to be tried regarding trespass and tortious interference.

The court concluded the plaintiff suffered irreparable harm due to delayed freight and passenger trains, and the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction as the protest was on private property.

The interim injunction was granted for 10 days.

Following dismissal of a motion for interim injunctive relief, the court addressed costs.

The respondents sought partial indemnity costs and the applicant did not challenge the amounts claimed or the reasonableness of the time spent and hourly rates.

The applicant argued that costs should be in the cause, determined by the judge hearing the ultimate application, or that no costs should be ordered.

Applying Rule 57.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that costs of the motion should be fixed absent a more just order and found no basis to defer or decline a costs award.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to each respondent.

The applicant sought an interim injunction and relief from forfeiture arising from the cancellation of billboard licence agreements on railway lands.

The respondents terminated the licences and demanded removal of approximately 240 billboard structures and payment of alleged rental arrears.

The court applied the three‑part test for interlocutory injunctions and found that although a serious issue existed regarding the parties’ conduct and contractual interpretation, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm because any loss could be compensated by damages.

The balance of convenience did not favour either party.

Interim equitable relief was therefore inappropriate in what was fundamentally a monetary dispute.