Jackson J.A. opined at paragraph 81: 81 In my respectful opinion, several difficulties arise with these reasons. First, the trial judge viewed “uniqueness” and the “adequacy of damages” as distinct questions, each to be answered independently of the other. Indeed, he considered whether the property is unique before considering whether damages would be adequate remedy. As such, he has not given effect to the change of law brought about by Semelhago v. Paramadevan, 1996 CanLII 209 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 415.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.