When will the court consider the "irreparable harm" element of the "balance of convenience" test?

It was argued most strenuously for the appellants that the “irreparable harm” test should be considered as merely part of the “balance of convenience” test. We disagree and re-assert the proposition put by us in Black v. The Law Society that, in Alberta, there is a tri-partite sequential test. First one must establish that the cause of action is not frivolous; next, one must establish that there would be no fair and reasonable redress available if there were no interim relief; third, the balance of convenience, having regard to all relevant factors, must favour an injunction. We think that the courts should not forget that an interim injunction is emergent relief. The claimant seeks a remedy without proof of his claim. This inversion should only be considered in cases where the harm is of such seriousness and of such a nature that any redress available after trial would not be fair or reasonable. This hurdle must be met before the balance of convenience is weighed.