What is the test for a rule 45.02 injunction?

In Stearns v. Scocchia, supra, the court discussed this factor: 19 The third step that a party must establish to qualify for a rule 45.02 order is to demonstrate that the “balance of convenience” favours the granting of the relief sought. The concept or term referred to is the "balance of convenience", which is a broad phrase with a variety of meanings in a variety of situations. Essentially, it allows for an expansive view of the facts of any particular case to allow a court, in the exercise of its discretion, to make an order where it is just and convenient to do so. The nature of the relief sought must be viewed against the backdrop of the particular facts of each case when determining whether it is just and convenient to make such an order. A rule 45.02 order is an exceptional category of pre-trial order, not merely procedural in nature, and one that can have a profound impact on a party. Before such an order is granted a moving party must show that there are cogent reasons to grant such an order and that without the order a palpable unfairness would result. 20 Although the nature of the order sought is different than a Mareva injunction situation, the consequences of the order (freezing an asset before trial) are similar. For that reason, the general requirements for granting a Mareva injunction are instructive when considering whether, based on the balance of convenience, it is “just and convenient” to grant a rule 45.02 order. Both orders have the effect of granting judgment before trial…. 22 Because of the extreme nature of a rule 45.02 order and/or a Mareva injunction, they are remedies that should be available only when it is necessary to balance the interests of the plaintiff and defendant. Both orders maintain the status quo until trial in a way that is fair to both the plaintiff and defendant and must not place the interests of the plaintiff before those of the defendant. Such orders are not merely procedural in nature and should be granted only in exceptional circumstances because they have the potential to injure a defendant before the plaintiff has proven its case at trial. Furthermore, it can place a defendant in an unfair position because it freezes a fund that would otherwise be available to the defendant and available for the purpose of operating its business. In short, such an order can appreciably tilt the scales in favour of a plaintiff on the basis of unproven allegations. Judicial discretion is therefore to be carefully exercised when considering a rule 45 order or the granting of a Mareva injunction given the severe prejudicial consequences that can result. [emphasis added] [footnotes omitted]