Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Rutherford appealed an interlocutory injunction requiring it to permit Manchester Rose employees access to the Harmony property.
   
• Six grounds of appeal challenged the injunction's characterization, the finding of irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience, among other issues.
   
• Appellate courts apply a deferential standard of review to discretionary injunction decisions absent an error in law or principle.
   
• Hearsay evidence was properly relied upon under Alberta's rules governing interlocutory applications.
   
• Loss of client relationships and reputational damage were found to constitute irreparable harm not easily compensated by damages.
   
• The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the injunction in its entirety.
   

Facts of the case

Rutherford Seniors Development Ltd owns and operates Harmony, an apartment complex of 187 rental suites whose residents are tenants rather than licensed supportive-living clients. Manchester Rose Group Inc, a licensed home care provider, had for several years supplied personal and healthcare services to Harmony's tenants under a resident services agreement the parties entered on November 27, 2021. The agreement let Manchester Rose operate within the building and market its services to tenants, while Rutherford could offer onsite healthcare to current and prospective residents; tenants were never obligated to use Manchester Rose and could choose another provider. Eligible tenants who did use Manchester Rose relied on funding through Alberta's Client Directed Home Care Invoicing (CDHCI) program, which requires seniors to select a provider registered with Alberta Blue Cross. Rutherford terminated the agreement in February 2025 and subsequently barred Manchester Rose from the property, cutting off its ability to serve Harmony residents. Around the same time, Rutherford entered into a similar arrangement with Harbor of Health Homecare Services Ltd, a competitor of Manchester Rose, and one individual served as a director of both Harbor and Rutherford. On June 4, 2025, Manchester Rose sought an injunction from the Court of King's Bench to regain access to the building so it could continue serving two remaining residents.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The chambers judge applied the three-part test from RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 SCR 311, assessing whether there was a serious question to be tried, whether Manchester Rose would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction, and where the balance of convenience lay. She granted the injunction, framed as prohibitive rather than mandatory, and dispensed with the usual requirement that Manchester Rose provide an undertaking as to damages, given the minimal impact on Rutherford. The resulting order barred Rutherford from directly or indirectly restricting Manchester Rose's access to Harmony for residents who chose it as their CDHCI service provider, and from restricting residents' choice of provider generally, while permitting Rutherford to require Manchester Rose employees to sign in under Harmony's standard visitor rules and requiring that resident information not be disclosed without consent. Also relevant on appeal was Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, r 13.18, which permits reliance on hearsay evidence in interlocutory applications.

Reasoning and analysis

The Court of Appeal applied a deferential standard of review, noting it would not interfere absent an error in law or principle, a palpable and overriding error of fact, or an unreasonable order, citing McDonald v Alberta, 2025 ABCA 175, and R v Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2018 SCC 5. On the first ground, the panel agreed the injunction was properly characterized as prohibitive: its practical effect required Rutherford to refrain from restricting access rather than to take positive action, and Rutherford did not need to incur additional expenditures or perform extra steps to comply. Because the injunction was prohibitive, Manchester Rose only needed to establish a serious question to be tried, a threshold Rutherford did not dispute was met. Turning to irreparable harm, the Court found no error in the chambers judge's conclusion that loss of client relationships and reputational harm were irreparable, distinguishing this from Rutherford's argument that lost revenue from two remaining clients was readily quantifiable; the judge had reasonably found such relationships "easily disturbed but not easily established or reestablished," supported by correspondence in the record, consistent with the approach in GG & HH Inc v 2306084 Alberta Ltd, 2022 ABQB 58. On the balance of convenience, the Court held the chambers judge properly weighed Rutherford's property and safety concerns against harm to vulnerable residents, and that reliance on hearsay evidence, including client emails, was permissible under r 13.18 and within the judge's discretion, referencing Graham v Graham, 2026 ABCA 104, and Guillevin International Co v Barry, 2022 ABCA 144. On the undertaking as to damages, the Court did not need to rule because Manchester Rose agreed to file one despite not conceding it was required. Finally, the panel rejected the overbreadth argument, finding the order's language was not vague and that its sign-in and common-area provisions meant Manchester Rose employees were treated the same as any other visitor.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court of Appeal dismissed Rutherford's appeal in full, upholding the injunction granted in favour of Manchester Rose Group Inc. Manchester Rose, as the successful party, is to file and serve an undertaking as to damages, by consent, within 10 days of the release of the reasons. The decision did not involve any monetary award, damages, or costs order — the relief at issue was injunctive only, with no dollar figure specified in the judgment.