Abstract:
Over twenty years have elapsed since the Supreme Court of Canada adopted the English tripartite test for interlocutory injunctions, a serious issue to be tried, proof of irreparable harm, and balance of convenience. This article is written in response to those who have argued that the concept of irreparable harm should not be viewed as a threshold requirement, but that it only forms a component of the balance of convenience inquiry. In contrast, the author argues that it is a central and necessary element of an applicant’s claim for interlocutory relief. Proof of irreparable harm is a necessary justification to access equitable relief and the burden placed upon the applicant to do so is a normal part of the civil litigation process. Canadian courts have not found this an unworkable approach, although the language used to describe the standard of evidential proof by some courts, namely ‘clear and not speculative, may have been unwise and was not required by the Supreme Court of Canada.