The defendants brought an urgent motion for an interlocutory injunction to stay the enforcement of a consent order, alleging their former counsel agreed to it without their instructions.
The plaintiff had been attempting to enforce a defaulted mortgage since 2018.
The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendants failed to meet the test for an injunction.
Email evidence contradicted their claims of lack of authority, showing they had input into the consent order's terms.
The defendants also failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.
