Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Justice Hooper dismissed the applicant's motion for an interlocutory injunction seeking reinstatement into the Central Canada Hockey League.
   
• The court characterized the relief sought as mandatory rather than prohibitory, requiring the applicant to establish a strong prima facie case rather than merely a serious issue to be tried.
   
• Pembroke Lumber Kings failed to meet that higher threshold despite raising several procedural arguments about the validity of its termination.
   
• Irreparable harm was found in the applicant's favour, since exclusion from the league would jeopardize its ability to recruit players, run camps, and preserve goodwill.
   
• Balance of convenience also favoured the applicant, yet this alone could not overcome its failure to show a strong prima facie case.
   
• Ultimately, an inadequate undertaking as to damages, unsupported by financial disclosure, contributed to the dismissal of the motion.
   

Facts of the case

The applicant, 2695193 Ontario Inc., operates the Pembroke Lumber Kings, a Junior A hockey team and member of the Central Canada Hockey League ("CCHL"), a twelve-team not-for-profit league in Eastern Ontario. Alex and Jackie Armstrong purchased the team in 2019 for approximately $1.2 million, and the club's annual operating budget runs between roughly $150,000 and $200,000 before coaches, league fees, and equipment. On June 23, 2025, Ian MacInnis, acting as Deputy Commissioner for the CCHL [the document elsewhere describes his role differently — the applicant contends the Deputy Commissioner position did not exist under the by-laws, while the respondent characterizes him as having been temporarily assigned "Commissioner-type responsibilities" as an Executive Committee member], sent PLK a notice advising it was more than 30 days in arrears of league fees, with the debt later stated by CCHL to be $69,960.63. When the debt remained unpaid, the Kemptville 73's brought written charges against PLK on July 25, 2025 under the CCHL by-laws, citing indebtedness, a supplier-related concern (later withdrawn), and reputational grounds (which did not proceed to a special resolution). Following written and oral submissions from both sides at a Board hearing held on September 23 and reconvened on September 30, 2025, the CCHL Board of Governors passed a special resolution on October 1, 2025 terminating PLK's membership on the ground of indebtedness. PLK exhausted its internal appeal rights, losing before the CCHL Appeals Committee, Hockey Eastern Ontario, and finally the Hockey Canada National Appeals Committee, which dismissed the last appeal on April 10, 2026. After termination took effect, CCHL publicly announced its intention to find a new operator for the Pembroke franchise and proceeded with the 2026–2027 league draft on the club's behalf. PLK then brought this motion seeking an interlocutory injunction to stay or set aside its termination pending determination of the underlying application.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The dispute engaged both the CCHL's by-laws and section 51 of the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, 2010. Section 51 requires that any disciplinary action or termination of membership be carried out in good faith and in a fair and reasonable manner, and deems a procedure fair and reasonable where the member receives at least 15 days' notice with reasons and an opportunity to be heard at least five days before the decision takes effect. The CCHL by-laws set out a detailed termination framework: Article 6.12 permits termination where a member fails to pay indebtedness within 30 days of a default notice; Article 6.13 allows a member, with the required support of other members, to bring written charges leading to a Board hearing at which the Board may dismiss, adjourn, suspend, fine, or terminate; and Article 8.04(d) governs the appeals process. Article 3.03 addresses the duties of the Executive Committee, permitting its members to perform tasks assigned by the Board or Chairman, which became relevant to whether Mr. MacInnis was authorized to issue the June 23, 2025 default notice.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Hooper first determined that the relief sought was mandatory rather than prohibitory, since PLK's membership had already been terminated and the requested order would compel CCHL to reverse that status quo by reinstating the applicant, restoring its access to league operations, and recognizing its trading rights. Relying on R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., 2018 SCC 5, the court held this required PLK to demonstrate a strong prima facie case rather than merely a serious issue to be tried, distinguishing the case from Richmond Hill Zone Hockey Association v. Ontario Minor Hockey Association, 2023 ONSC 2137, where the injunction had been sought before the disputed dissolution took effect. Turning to that higher threshold, the court rejected PLK's argument that Mr. MacInnis's involvement in issuing the default notice invalidated the process, finding that Article 3.03 permitted Executive Committee members to perform assigned tasks and that the termination process was in any event triggered by Kemptville's Article 6.13 charges rather than by the notice itself. The court also found that PLK received the process required under section 51 and the by-laws, including notice, an opportunity to respond, and a hearing, and rejected the submission that paying the arrears before the Board hearing should have halted proceedings, since nothing in the by-laws required the Board to discontinue once a member cured its default. The argument that CCHL, rather than Kemptville, truly drove the process was also rejected, as the Board's mixed outcome across the three original charges was inconsistent with predetermination. While the court acknowledged some merit to PLK's argument that the Board should have issued written reasons for choosing termination over a lesser penalty, it found this case distinguishable from Dillon v. Carp Agricultural Society, 2024 ONSC 1858, because CCHL had closely followed its own termination provisions. On irreparable harm, the court accepted that exclusion from the league threatened PLK's ability to recruit players, maintain sponsorships, and preserve goodwill in a manner damages could not remedy, and found the balance of convenience also favoured PLK given the risk that the franchise could cease operating before the application was heard, citing West Hill Minor Hockey Association v. Scarborough Hockey Association, 2009 CanLII 26609 (ON SC). However, these findings could not overcome PLK's failure to establish a strong prima facie case. The court further found the undertaking as to damages offered by PLK and the Armstrongs was not supported by adequate financial disclosure, such as financial statements or asset records, leaving the court unable to conclude the undertaking provided meaningful protection to CCHL, consistent with the principle in Cash Cloud v. BitAccess, 2022 ONSC 5622.

Ruling and overall outcome

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed. Justice Hooper concluded that although PLK had shown a risk of irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured its position, it had not established the strong prima facie case required for mandatory interlocutory relief, and its undertaking as to damages lacked sufficient financial support. The Central Canada Hockey League was the successful party on the motion and was awarded its costs, with the amount of costs to be determined through subsequent written submissions rather than fixed in this decision; no specific costs figure was stated. Leave was separately granted on the main application for PLK to amend the style of cause to correctly name the parties.