Index

November 16, 2021

Types of Injunctionsr


October 1, 2021

Orders After Litigation is Over


August 11, 2021

Discoverability for Limitation Periods


August 5 , 2021

Releases of Claims


June 7 , 2021

Language Used Still Matters


May 17 , 2021

Serving Uncooperative People


April 15 , 2021

Death and After-Life of Contingency Agreements


February 22 , 2021

Legal Analysis


February 2 , 2021

Costs Clarified at Last


January 4 , 2021

Urgent!


December 10, 2020

Traps and Confusion in Service Times


November 24, 2020

Don't Cut Corners


October 2 , 2020

Consent Orders


August 4 , 2020

Electronic Hearings


July 21, 2020

Ceasing to Act


June 29, 2020

Writing Skills


June 29, 2020

Keeping Up With the Law


June 22, 2020

Assets as a Test for Security for Costs


June 19, 2020

What is This Case About?


June 11, 2020

Cross-Examining Child Witnesses


May 20 , 2020

Formal Offers


May 13 , 2020

Vexatious or Self-Represented Litigants


January 7, 2020

G.S.T. and Costs


December 20 , 2019

Electronically Navigating the
Handbook


October 7 , 2019

Questioning is a Bad Word


July 29 , 2019

Dismissal for Delay


May 7 , 2019

Rule 4.31 Fallacies


March 18 , 2019

More Dangers in Oral Fee Agreements


February 11 , 2019

Weir-Jones Decisions


January 9 , 2019

Discouraging Settlements


November 30, 2018

European Court Helps You Twice?


November 23 , 2018

Courts Overruling Tribunals


November 16 , 2018

New Evidence on Appeal


October 30 , 2018

Schedule C's Role


July 17 , 2018

Loopholes in Enforcing Settlements


May 7 , 2018

Enforcement of Procedure Rules


April 16, 2018

Limping Lawsuits are Often
Doomed


April 3 , 2018

Court of Appeal Tips for
Summary Decisions


March 19, 2018

Serious Dangers in Chambers
Applications


February 13 , 2018

Court Backlog


December 18 , 2017

Lowering the Status of Courts


September 15 , 2017

Access to Court Decisions


July 4 , 2017

Strictissimi Juris


June 14 , 2017

Why Don't Your Clients Settle?


June 5 , 2017

Gap in Rules About Parties


June 5, 2017

Personal Costs Against
Solicitors


April 26, 2017

Clogged Courts


April 11, 2017

Dismissal for Want of
Prosecution


January 6, 2017

Incomplete Disclosure


December 15, 2016

Mediation


November 23, 2016

Is Contract Interpretation Law?

 

Welcome

Côté’s Commentaries

© 2016-2021 J.E. Côté

TYPES OF INJUNCTIONS

Any litigator who is likely to become involved in injunctions would benefit from reading a recent Queen’s Bench decision. For one thing, injunction issues are often emergencies with limited time for research.

The decision discusses a number of categories and how to distinguish them:

  1. meeting the necessary requirements for an injunction vs. judicial discretion to refuse an injunction,
  2. final or permanent vs. interlocutory injunctions,
  3. whether distinction #2 refers to the test, or refers to the evidence heard or whether there has been a trial (or full determination of the issues),
  4. mandatory vs. prohibitive injunctions, and how elusive this distinction can be at times,
  5. how # 2 and # 4 interact.

The decision seems to criticize the need for stronger evidence to get a mandatory injunction. That may be academic, as the Supreme Court of Canada supports that need.

If some of these 5 distinctions are forgotten or not understood, things can seem very confusing. Or lawyers or judges may misstate basic rules.

The case also shows how one can become confused where the injunction sought is not about the substantive rights of either party, but about procedure along the way in a dispute. To take an imaginary example, the basic ongoing dispute is whether the ditch which you have started to dig is on my land, or is protected by an easement. But the fight at the moment is whether to give an injunction against keeping or destroying surveyors’ pins and written records.

The decision is Plains Midstream Can. v. Keyera Pship. 2021 ABQB 871, JCE 2101 05001 (Nov 3).

– Hon. J.E. Côté

 

The Commentaries are intended to call the attention of lawyers to promising or threatening developments in the law, in civil procedure, in developing their skills, or simply to describe something curious, funny or intriguing.

Justice Côté recently retired from the Court of Appeal of Alberta and currently acts as an arbitrator, mediator, or referee under Rules 6.44 and 6.45 of the Alberta Rules of Court.

He may be contacted through Juriliber at email: info@juriliber.com or phone 780-424-5345.