On October 7, 2014, Nordheimer J. decided the matter of Sprott Private Wealth LP v. BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. The decision underscores the high level of deference to be shown to interlocutory orders of motion judges.
The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory injunction on the basis that the motion judge had improperly applied the well-known RJR MacDonald test. Nordheimer J. refused leave to appeal, concluding that the defendants had failed to satisfy either of the tests for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Nordheimer J. premised his decision on the idea that, “the motion judge gave a handwritten endorsement detailing the reasons for his decision, directly after hearing the motion. No one should expect, nor would it be reasonable to demand, that reasons in that situation will be a model of perfection.”
Nordheimer J. conducted an analysis of the reasons given by the motion judge against the factual record of the case. He concluded that the legal principles were correctly applied, regardless of the fact that the analysis was brief. Importantly, the motion judge could not be said to have made a “‘palpable and overriding factual error’ of the type that would justify interference by an appellate court.”
Nordheimer J. dismissed the motion and awarded costs against the defendant.