Bank of Montreal v. Calbax Properties Ltd. and Baxter Estates Ltd., (1977) 4 A.R. 483 (TD)

JudgeMoshansky, J.
CourtCourt of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
Case DateFebruary 28, 1977
Citations(1977), 4 A.R. 483 (TD)

Bk. of Mtrl. v. Calbax Prop. Ltd. (1977), 4 A.R. 483 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Bank of Montreal v. Calbax Properties Ltd. and Baxter Estates Ltd.

Indexed As: Bank of Montreal v. Calbax Properties Ltd. and Baxter Estates Ltd.

Alberta Supreme Court

Trial Division

Judicial District of Calgary

Moshansky, J.

February 28, 1977.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Injunctions - Topic 1600

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - General principles respecting the grant of an interim injunction - The Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, referred to the procedure and principles to be applied on an application for an interim injunction - See paragraph 28.

Injunctions - Topic 1643

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Parties - Requirement of joining party who would be adversely affected - The plaintiff bank was a tenant in a shopping centre and applied for an interim injunction to restrain the owner of the shopping centre from leasing space to another bank - The plaintiff bank claimed pursuant to a restrictive covenant in its lease from the owner - The plaintiff bank did not join the other bank as a party - The Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction - The Trial Division stated that unless the party who would be adversely affected is before the court that the court will not ordinarily grant an injunction - See paragraphs 33 to 34.

Injunctions - Topic 1804

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Irreparable injury - Restrictive covenants affecting land - The plaintiff bank was a tenant in a shopping centre and applied for an interim injunction to restrain the owner of the shopping centre from leasing space to another bank - The plaintiff bank claimed pursuant to a restrictive covenant in its lease from the owner - The Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, dismissed the bank's application because it failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable injury - The Trial Division stated that damages would adequately compensate the plaintiff - The Trial Division stated that the balance of inconvenience and injury was against granting the plaintiff's application.

Cases Noticed:

American Cyanamid v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] A.C. 396, folld. [para. 17].

Hampstead & Suburban Properties Ltd. v. Desmedous, [1969] 1 Ch. 248, folld. [para. 18].

Doherty v. Allman (1878), 3 App. Cas. 709, folld. [para. 18].

Hardee Farms International Ltd. v. Cam & Crank Grinding Ltd. et al., [1973] O.R. 170, folld. [para. 19].

Abouna v. Foothills Provincial General Hospital Board (1976), 65 D.L.R.(3d) 337; 4 A.R. 573, folld. [para. 26].

Fellowes and Sons v. Fisher, [1975] 2 All E.R. 829, folld. [para. 27].

Guardian Assurance Company Limited v. Matthew, [1919] 1 W.W.R. 67, folld. [para. 34].

Counsel:

T.H. Ferguson, for the plaintiff;

J.C. Major, Q.C., for the defendants.

The judgment of the Trial Division of the Alberta Supreme Court was delivered by MOSHANSKY, J., at Calgary, Alberta on February 28, 1977.

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
13 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT