ERT Rule 110 requires the party seeking a stay to satisfy the common law test set out in RJR - MacDonald Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 331, namely: whether there is a serious issue to be tried;
whether irreparable harm will result if the stay is denied; and whether the balance of convenience, including effects on the public interest, favours the granting of a stay.
Not exact matches
Rather, he is being asked
whether allowing the vote to be held would cause «
irreparable harm» to Greenlight's case.
Fundamentalism,
whether Christian or Muslim, distorts and does
irreparable harm to the very religious tradition it claims to be defending.
This case offers clarification with respect to the second part of the test for granting an interim injunction — in this case,
whether the building of a three storey duplex (in breach of a «clear negative covenant») would cause the Appellant to suffer
irreparable harm.
Instead, the same old four part test for injunctive relief that we all learned back in law school applies where the district court weighs factors as likelihood of success and
irreparable nature of
harm in determining
whether to order a permanent injunction or
whether monetary damages will suffice.
Secondly, it must be determined
whether the applicant would suffer
irreparable harm if the application were refused.