The defendant municipality sought leave to appeal an interlocutory injunction prohibiting public use of municipal land pending trial in a nuisance action brought by neighbouring landowners.
The court considered the test for leave under rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires either conflicting authority or good reason to doubt the correctness of the order combined with broader importance.
Although no conflicting jurisprudence was shown, the court held that the scope of the injunction—effectively barring all municipal use of public land—raised serious questions regarding judicial oversight of municipal policy decisions and therefore met the “doubt the correctness” test.
Leave to appeal the injunction and the associated costs order was granted.
However, the court declined to stay the injunction pending appeal, finding no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the order.
