Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The enforceability and interpretation of the November 27, 2021 agreement between Manchester Rose Group Inc. and Rutherford Seniors Development Ltd. regarding access to Harmony for providing personal and health care services.

• The right of residents at Harmony to choose their own service providers under Alberta’s Client Directed Home Care Invoicing (CDHCI) program and whether Rutherford can restrict this choice.

• The legal characterization of the injunction sought—whether prohibitive or mandatory—and the corresponding legal test to be applied.

• The admissibility and weight of hearsay evidence in affidavits, particularly emails attached as exhibits, under Rule 13.18 of the Alberta Rules of Court.

• The assessment of irreparable harm to Manchester, especially regarding loss of client relationships and potential reputational damage, versus economic loss.

• The balance of convenience between Manchester’s and Harmony residents’ interests in continued service and provider choice, and Rutherford’s interests in operational control, building security, and contractual freedom.

Background and facts of the case

Manchester Rose Group Inc. (“Manchester”) is an established provider of home care, palliative care, and hospice care to seniors in and around Edmonton. Rutherford Seniors Development Ltd. (“Rutherford”) developed Harmony at Rutherford (“Harmony”), an apartment complex with 187 rental suites and common amenity areas, catering to retirement living for seniors but not classified as a supported living facility.

On November 27, 2021, Manchester and Rutherford entered into an agreement (“the Agreement”) allowing Manchester to provide personal and health care services to Harmony residents on an as-needed basis, permitting residents to choose their required services. The Agreement also allowed Manchester to advertise and maintain a presence at Harmony, including office and storage space and use of common amenity areas. In exchange, Rutherford could offer optional health, wellness, and convenience services to attract residents.

Rutherford terminated the Agreement on February 5, 2025, alleging breaches by Manchester. Manchester commenced an action against Rutherford, claiming breach of contract, defamation, and that Rutherford imposed restrictions on Manchester’s access to Harmony to provide services. A Statement of Claim was filed on June 4, 2025, and an Amended Statement of Claim on July 9, 2025. Rutherford filed a Statement of Defence and Counterclaim on July 29, 2025, alleging defamation, inducing breach of contract, intentional interference with economic relations, and conspiracy.

Rutherford subsequently entered into a similar agreement with Harbor of Health Home Care Services Ltd. (“Harbor”), incorporated in April 2024 and sharing a director, Kyle Jacober, with Rutherford.

Procedural history and interim orders

On July 30, 2025, Justice Lema adjourned Manchester’s application and granted an Interim Without Prejudice Order permitting Manchester to attend Harmony for the sole purpose of providing existing health care services to existing clients and prohibiting Rutherford from interfering with Manchester’s access. On August 12, 2025, Justice Becker Brookes extended this order to August 22, 2025, on the same terms.

Policy context: CDHCI

Alberta Health Services offers the Client Directed Home Care Invoicing (“CDHCI”) program, which allows qualified individuals to select their own private home care providers from a list of approved providers. Funding is processed through Alberta Blue Cross. CDHCI is not approved for home settings owned by care provider agencies or in licensed facilities, but Harmony is not a licensed supportive living accommodation. In a February 26, 2025 email, Minister Nixon confirmed that CDHCI is intended to enable client choice and that Harmony is not a licensed supportive living accommodation.

Allegations and recent events

Manchester alleged that Rutherford attempted to restrict Manchester from providing services to Harmony residents by deactivating key fobs, advising residents that Manchester would be restricted from entering Harmony effective July 31, 2025, reminding residents to make alternate arrangements, holding meetings advising residents to cancel contracts with Manchester, and requiring Manchester employees to sign in and advise who they were visiting. Rutherford’s position regarding Manchester’s access was inconsistent, with prior statements affirming residents’ right to choose their provider.

Evidentiary issue

Rutherford raised concerns about Manchester’s reliance on hearsay evidence, specifically emails attached as Exhibit “E” to the Affidavit of Shani DeShield. The Court noted that hearsay is permitted in interlocutory injunction applications under Rule 13.18 if the source and grounds for belief are given, but lack of source may diminish evidentiary weight.

Court’s analysis and outcome

The Court applied the three-part test for interlocutory injunctions: (1) serious issue to be tried, (2) irreparable harm, and (3) balance of convenience.

The Court found that the substance of the relief sought by Manchester was prohibitive, not mandatory, and that there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the operation of CDHCI, residents’ rights to engage service providers, and Rutherford’s authority to control access.

On irreparable harm, the Court found that while most harm to Manchester was economic and compensable, the loss of client relationships and potential reputational damage were not easily quantifiable and could constitute irreparable harm.

On the balance of convenience, the Court found that denying the injunction would disrupt care for residents, deprive them of provider choice, and harm Manchester’s relationships and reputation. The harm to Rutherford was minimal and could be managed by requiring Manchester employees to sign in and adhere to Harmony’s regulations for visitors and use of common areas. The Court found no evidence that Manchester’s continued access would materially interfere with other providers, operational structure, or insurance.

Final order and implications

The Court granted an interlocutory injunction to Manchester, prohibiting Rutherford from:
(a) directly or indirectly restricting Manchester’s access to Harmony for the purpose of providing personal and health care services to the residents of Harmony; and
(b) directly or indirectly restricting the residents of Harmony from choosing their own service providers under CDHCI.

Rutherford may require Manchester employees to sign in according to Harmony’s standard rules and regulations for visitors, and residents’ personal or health information shall not be disclosed without consent. Provision of services must adhere to Harmony’s established regulations for use of common amenity areas.

No undertaking as to damages was required from Manchester, as the Court found it unwarranted in this case.

In summary, Manchester was granted an interlocutory injunction, allowing it to continue serving Harmony residents and preserving their right to choose their care provider. No specific monetary amount was determined, as the relief was injunctive and not monetary.