MANCHESTER ROSE GROUP INC v RUTHERFORD SENIORS DEVELOPMENT LTD

The Respondent, a homecare provider, had been barred by Appellant from accessing a seniors’ residence after their service agreement was terminated. A Chambers Judge granted an Injunction preventing the Appellant from restricting the Respondent’s access to the residence so the Respondent could continue to provide care to residents. The Appellant appealed, arguing that the Injunction was improperly granted.

The Court dismissed the Appeal and upheld the Injunction. The Court found that the Chambers Judge correctly applied the test laid down in RJR‑MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General) for interlocutory injunctions. The Injunction, the Court found, was properly characterized as prohibitive and not mandatory, because it only prevented the Appellant from blocking access rather than requiring positive action. Feehan, De Wit, and Friesen J.J.A. also upheld the finding of irreparable harm, noting that loss of client relationships and reputational damage is not easily compensated by damages, and found no reviewable error in how the balance of convenience was assessed, particularly given the impact on vulnerable residents who relied on care services.

The Court further rejected arguments that the Injunction was procedurally unfair, overbroad, or improperly based on hearsay evidence. It confirmed that hearsay is permissible in interlocutory proceedings and that the scope of the Injunction was appropriately limited to allowing access for service provision. While the issue of an undertaking as to damages was raised for the first time on Appeal, it was resolved by consent. Overall, the Court found no error in principle or law and dismissed the Appeal.