Manchester, a senior care provider, applied for an interlocutory Injunction to restrain Rutherford, the owner of a seniors complex. Manchester alleged that Rutherford was restricting its access to the complex. Such access was required to provide healthcare services to residents. Leading up to the alleged restriction, the Parties had a long-standing contractual relationship, which Rutherford terminated for alleged breach before engaging another provider that shared a Director with Rutherford.

During the proceedings, Rutherford objected to Manchester’s reliance on hearsay evidence contained in emails attached as an exhibit to an Affidavit. Manchester’s Affidavits relied on personal knowledge, information, and belief.

Justice Brookes confirmed that Rule 13.18 expressly permits hearsay evidence in Interlocutory Applications if the source of the information and grounds for belief are identified. Brooks J. further clarified that where hearsay is adduced without identifying its source, the Court may still consider it, but the weight of the evidence may be diminished. 

The emails at issue were admitted. Justice Brookes found the emails demonstrated the residents’ concerns when they were told they had to stop using Manchester’s services. Brookes J. determined that the Injunction would protect the residents from disruption and stress, which outweighed Rutherford’s arguments regarding safety, operational clarity, and contractual freedom.

Applying the test for Injunctive relief from RJR-MacDonald, Justice Brookes found there was a serious issue to be tried, and irreparable harm to Manchester was a realistic outcome if relief was not granted. Further, Brookes J. held the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured Manchester and the residents of the complex. The Injunction was ultimately granted.