Appeal Courts will use deference in reviewing interlocutory injunctions

R v Conseil Scolaire Fransaskois, 2013 SKCA 35 is a useful case for the proposition that the determination of whether an interlocutory injunction ought to be granted will be considered with deference by an appeal court:

[14]   In general terms, this Court approaches appeals involving interlocutory injunctions with a reasonable measure of deference. Jackson J.A. described the applicable standard of review as follows in Culligan Canada Ltd. v. Fettes, 2009 SKCA 144 (CanLII), 2009 SKCA 144, [2010] 6 W.W.R. 420:

13     As a preliminary matter, it is important to underscore the standard of review to be applied. It has been often said that appellate courts have a limited role in reviewing the granting of an interim or interlocutory injunction. In that regard, the Supreme Court of Canada has adopted the deferential approach established by Diplock J. in Hadmor Productions Ltd. v. Hamilton, [1982] 1 All E.R. 1042 and Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Metropolitan Stores Ltd., 1987 CanLII 79 (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110. The reviewing court must not interfere with a Chambers judge's exercise of discretion merely on the ground that the members of the court would have exercised their discretion differently (Hadmor, at p. 1046; Metropolitan Stores, pp. 154-56). As the Supreme Court of Canada said recently in Harper v. Canada (Attorney General),2000 SCC 57 (CanLII), 2000 SCC 57, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 764 at p. 777: "[t]o interfere, there must be a clear mistake on the law or the evidence, or some other glaring error." From this Court see also: Canada (Attorney General) v. Saskatchewan Water Corp.,1991 CanLII 3951 (SK CA), [1992] 4 W.W.R. 712 and Govan Local School Board v. Last Mountain School Division No. 29reflex, (1991), 83 D.L.R. (4th) 685 at p. 690.                                 [emphasis added]