The plaintiffs brought an urgent motion for interim injunctive relief seeking possession of restaurant premises allegedly purchased through a share purchase agreement.
The defendants argued the motion was barred by res judicata and raised a defence of non est factum, asserting the principal defendant did not understand the English-language transaction documents.
The court found the motion was not barred because a prior dismissal was without prejudice and the plaintiffs had since commenced an action and assembled extensive documentary and examination evidence supporting the transaction.
Applying the test for interlocutory injunctions from RJR‑MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), the court held that there was a serious issue to be tried, that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm without relief, and that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the business assets and premises pending trial.
Interim injunctive relief was granted compelling delivery of possession and restraining competing business activities.
