A.L. Scott Financial (Newton) Inc. v. Vancouver City Savings Credit Union

A.L. Scott Financial (Newton) Inc. v. Vancouver City Savings Credit Union

The chambers judge erred in principle by granting a permanent (in substance mandatory) injunction under Rule 18 despite the procedural limits of Rule 18, reliance on inadmissible hearsay, failure to demonstrate that damages were an inadequate remedy, and by conflating interlocutory balance of convenience analysis with a final remedy; therefore the order must be set aside.

Citation
2000 BCCA 143
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: A.L. Sott Financial (Newton) Inc.; Plaintiff/respondent: 372363 British Columbia Ltd.; Defendant/appellant: Vancouver City Savings Credit Union
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (chambers Injunction) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; chambers order set aside.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Mandatory Injunction, Lease Covenants, Rule 18 Summary Judgment, Interlocutory Injunction, Adequacy of Damages, Procedural Irregularity
Source Language
English
Contract Equity Injunctions Property/real Estate Civil Procedure Specific Performance Mandatory Injunction Lease Covenants +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.L. Sott Financial (Newton) Inc.

Plaintiff/respondent

372363 British Columbia Ltd.

Plaintiff/respondent

Vancouver City Savings Credit Union

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (chambers Injunction) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a permanent/mandatory injunction requiring a tenant to continue to operate a business can be granted
  2. 2 Whether Rule 18 was an appropriate procedural vehicle for granting a final mandatory injunction
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the landlord

Ratio Decidendi

The chambers judge erred in principle by granting a permanent (in substance mandatory) injunction under Rule 18 despite the procedural limits of Rule 18, reliance on inadmissible hearsay, failure to demonstrate that damages were an inadequate remedy, and by conflating interlocutory balance of convenience analysis with a final remedy; therefore the order must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; chambers order set aside.

Orders

  • Allow the appeal
  • Set aside the permanent injunction granted in chambers