Technologies H2CI Inc. v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change)

Technologies H2CI Inc. v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change)

The ex parte motion was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate the urgent need to proceed without notice as required by s.374 of the Federal Courts Rules and supporting case law; absent proof of urgency/no‑notice necessity, the Court would not consider the merits of the RJR‑MacDonald injunction criteria on an ex parte basis and the motion must be denied.

Citation
2017 FC 520
Parties
Applicant: Technologies H2CI Inc.; Respondent: Environment and Climate Change Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction (ex Parte Interlocutory Motion) / Ex Parte Motion for Interim/interlocutory Injunction Dismissed
Outcome
Applicant's ex parte motion for an interim injunction dismissed; leave to renew after service on respondent
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Ex Parte Relief, Urgency, Service, Rjr‑mac Donald Test, Abandonment of Property
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Equity Administrative Law Environmental Law Interim Injunction Ex Parte Relief Urgency Service +2 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Technologies H2CI Inc.

Applicant

Environment and Climate Change Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction (ex Parte Interlocutory Motion) / Ex Parte Motion for Interim/interlocutory Injunction Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant met the requirements for an ex parte interim injunction under s.374 of the Federal Courts Rules
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated urgency such that no notice could be given or that notice would cause irreparable harm
  3. 3 Whether the applicant satisfied the three‑part RJR‑MacDonald test (serious issue, irreparable harm, balance of convenience)

Ratio Decidendi

The ex parte motion was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate the urgent need to proceed without notice as required by s.374 of the Federal Courts Rules and supporting case law; absent proof of urgency/no‑notice necessity, the Court would not consider the merits of the RJR‑MacDonald injunction criteria on an ex parte basis and the motion must be denied.

Court Disposition

Applicant's ex parte motion for an interim injunction dismissed; leave to renew after service on respondent

Orders

  • Ex parte interim injunction dismissed
  • Applicant authorized to serve its Motion Record and a copy of this order on the respondent by any means of service, including electronic service