The following excerpt is from American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Durable Release Coaters Limited, 2007 CanLII 20094 (ON SC):
The plaintiff also relied upon the decision of Aitken J. in Carleton University v. Mercier,  O.J. No. 1446 (S.C.J.). That case involved an interim preservation order pending the return of an interlocutory injunction. The learned motions judge noted that the test for an interim interlocutory injunction was the same as that for an interlocutory injunction and proceeded to review the facts of the case having regard to the three requirements -- serious question to be tried; irreparable harm; and balance of convenience. He also referred to rule 45.02 in reference to the fact that if funds paid to the defendant were paid to third parties who appear not to be operating at arm's length from the defendant in apparent contradiction of the terms of a signed contract, he would have no hesitation in ordering their preservation pending a judicial determination of entitlement to the fund. Notwithstanding the reference to rule 45.02, the granting of the interim injunctive relief requested was, in [page62 ]my view, pursuant to the court's injunctive power and not pursuant to rule 45.02.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.