Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiffs sought a quia timet interlocutory injunction to prevent racetrack closure for rodent abatement.

• Court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, emphasizing need for strong prima facie case due to anticipatory nature of relief.

• Plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm, with evidence showing mostly speculative or financial losses.

• No enforceable contractual right to summer racetrack access was proven by plaintiffs.

• Regulatory obligations required defendants to proceed with pest control, including support from WorkSafeBC and GPEB.

• Court found balance of convenience favored the defendants and dismissed the injunction application.

Facts and outcome of the case

Harness Racing B.C. Society and its member, Margaret White, filed an action against Orangeville Raceway Limited and its parent company, Great Canadian Gaming Corporation. The dispute arose when Orangeville ordered the plaintiffs to vacate the Fraser Downs Racetrack in Surrey, B.C., by May 9, 2025, to conduct a rodent abatement program. The deadline was later extended to May 30, 2025, at HRBC's request. The plaintiffs filed a notice of civil claim and sought an interlocutory injunction to preserve their access to the racetrack through the remainder of the year.

The plaintiffs argued that the racetrack was essential for training and racing their standardbred horses, particularly in preparation for the lucrative fall racing season. They claimed that closure of the track would result in irreparable harm, including lost income, devalued horses, and threats to their livelihood. HRBC also contended that they had a contractual right to occupy and use the facilities and that Orangeville was acting in bad faith.

Orangeville defended the closure by citing serious health and safety risks due to a longstanding rat infestation, supported by pest control experts and regulatory oversight from the Gaming Policy Enforcement Branch (GPEB), Fraser Health Authority, and WorkSafeBC. The defendants emphasized their legal and regulatory obligations to fully vacate the premises for 60–90 days to conduct thorough pest treatment.

Justice Marzari dismissed the application for the injunction. The Court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove a strong prima facie case for any of the alleged causes of action, including breach of contract, breach of good faith, unlawful interference with economic relations, or conversion. The Court found no enforceable agreement entitling HRBC or its members to summer access to the racetrack, particularly given HRBC’s refusal to sign a proposed 2025 lease and their inconsistent payment record.

In evaluating the RJR-MacDonald criteria, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs did not establish irreparable harm, as most of their concerns were speculative financial losses that could be compensated by damages. It also noted a lack of credible evidence that the fall racing season would be cancelled, or that the plaintiffs' livelihoods would be permanently harmed.

The balance of convenience favored the defendants, as they were acting on regulatory advice and stood to suffer operational and reputational harm if the pest control measures were delayed. The Court granted a short 2-day interim stay (by consent) to allow Mrs. White to remove her horses and property but otherwise dismissed the injunction application entirely.