I now turn to the third branch of the test, the balance of convenience. The respondents forcefully argue that the interest of the general public must be taken into account and they cite as authority for that proposition Birch v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2005 BCSC 1704. The respondents also argue that in the case of an application for an injunction sought to stop a public authority from taking regulatory action, it is the legal effect of the application and not its form that is determinative. It is argued that the Act has a safety purpose and that the court ought to assume there would be irreparable harm to the public interest if a stay of a considered decision were made.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.