The chambers judge dismissed their application. It was his view that a finding of actual or likely hardship and inconvenience caused by the registration of the CPLs was a threshold requirement before an undertaking as to damages could be granted, and that in the absence of such evidence the appellants’ application had to fail. He did, however, grant the appellants liberty to renew their application “if circumstances develop in the future that would merit such a further application”: Liquor Barn Income Fund v. Mather, 2009 BCSC 1092. To date, the appellants have not renewed their application for either order.
"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.