The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an interlocutory costs order that reserved the costs of their successful injunction motion to the trial judge.
The plaintiffs argued there were conflicting decisions and good reason to doubt the correctness of the order.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding that the motion judge properly exercised his discretion in ordering costs in the cause, consistent with the normal practice for interlocutory injunctions, and that differing outcomes in other cases reflected discretionary fact-specific determinations rather than conflicting legal principles.
