A recent decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, setting aside the interlocutory injunction granted by the Chambers judge, illustrates how difficult it is to obtain an interlocutory injunction absent convincing evidence that satisfies the three part test for an interlocutory injunction. In Kulyk v. Wildman (Weight Loss Forever Consulting), the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench granted the plaintiff an interlocutory injunction precluding the defendant from using or carrying on business under the plaintiff’s alleged business name and trademark, “Global Healthcare Connections” and directing the defendant to remove all references to the plaintiff’s mark on social media sources. In assessing the plaintiff’s application, the Chambers judge looked to Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc. v. Mosaic Potash Esterhazy Limited Partnership which set out the well‑established test for an interlocutory injunction:
(1) the strength of the plaintiff’s case;
(2) the presence of a meaningful risk of irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; and,
(3) whether the balance of convenience favours the granting of the injunction.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and held that the plaintiff’s application for injunctive relief was based on the common law tort of passing off, which in turn, required evidence of goodwill, deception of the public due to misrepresentation, and actual or potential damage to the plaintiff. The Court stated that the plaintiff’s case was weak because she failed to put forth any evidence to establish the existence of goodwill associated with the name Global Healthcare Connections. The plaintiff’s affidavit referred to various steps she had taken to launch her business, but it also stated that she had had difficulty launching her business because of the defendant’s actions. Thus, there was no evidence that the plaintiff or her services were known in the market.
The Court found it unnecessary to assess the remaining elements of the common law tort, although it did comment on these. With respect to the element of irreparable harm, the Court disagreed with the Chambers judge’s finding that the plaintiff had suffered loss of business, finding instead, that the similarity between the names used by the parties would likely result in a benefit rather than harm to the plaintiff’s business. Noting that a balance of convenience analysis could be “compendious”, the Court was satisfied that the balance of convenience also favoured the defendant, given the weakness of the plaintiff’s case and given that irreparable harm favoured the defendant. Thus, the Chambers judge’s decision could not stand.