Altemeyer v. Winnipeg (City) et al., (2016) 330 Man.R.(2d) 180 (CA)

• Judge: MacInnes, Beard and Pfuetzner, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: May 10, 2016
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2016), 330 Man.R.(2d) 180 (CA);2016 MBCA 71

Altemeyer v. Winnipeg (2016), 330 Man.R.(2d) 180 (CA);

      675 W.A.C. 180

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.001

Jennifer Altemeyer (applicant/appellant) v. City of Winnipeg and West Broadway Development Corporation (respondents/respondents)

(AI 15-30-08520; 2016 MBCA 71)

Indexed As: Altemeyer v. Winnipeg (City) et al.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

MacInnes, Beard and Pfuetzner, JJ.A.

June 22, 2016.

Summary:

Altemeyer, self-represented, applied for judicial review respecting a variance order granted by the City of Winnipeg in relation to a vacant lot used as a community garden for over 20 years. The property was owned by West Broadway Development Corp. (WBDC), a not-for-profit organization. Altemeyer moved for an interlocutory injunction, a Mareva injunction, and an Anton Piller order/injunction, pending a decision on the merits.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 325 Man.R.(2d) 7, dismissed the motion. Regarding the request for an interlocutory injunction, the Court found that there was no serious question to be tried, Altemeyer had not suffered, nor would suffer, irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted, and the balance of convenience favoured WBDC. The Court also found that there was no basis for granting either a Mareva injunction or an Anton Piller order/injunction. Altemeyer appealed. She challenged certain inquiries and comments made by the judge in the course of the hearing, and the sufficiency of the reasons for judgment.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Injunctions - Topic 1610

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - General principles - Circumstances when injunction will not be granted - The applicant (self-represented) applied for judicial review respecting a variance order granted by the City of Winnipeg in relation to a vacant lot used as a community garden for over 20 years - The property was owned by the respondent, a not-for-profit organization - The applicant appealed the dismissal of her motion for an interlocutory injunction - She challenged certain inquiries and comments made by the judge in the course of the hearing, and the sufficiency of the reasons for judgment - The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The motion judge, in his reasons, considered the three criteria to be established by the applicant in order to obtain the interlocutory injunction - He considered each aspect of the test and applied the facts to those three criteria - Having done so, he found that there was no serious question to be tried, that the applicant had not suffered, nor would suffer, irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted, and that the balance of convenience favoured the respondent - There was no basis for appellate intervention with respect to the discretionary decision of the judge.

Injunctions - Topic 1935

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Practice - Appeals - Duties of Appeal Court (incl. standard of review) - [See Injunctions - Topic 1610 ].

Counsel:

J. Altemeyer, on her own behalf;

J.S. Michaels, for the respondent, West Broadway Development Corp.;

M. Muller, on a watching brief for the City of Winnipeg.

This appeal was heard on May 10, 2016, before MacInnes, Beard and Pfuetzner, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The Court delivered the following judgment and reasons, dated June 22, 2016.