What is the current state of the law in Canada on the issue of anti-abortion sit-ins?

No Alberta authorities were cited which have taken a similar approach in departing from the test in Cyanamid v. Ethicon, supra, although it appears that the courts exercise discretion in the amount of emphasis placed on each of the factors comprising this tripartite test (Sharpe, Injunctions and Specific Performance, p. 131). I conclude that it is the Cyanamid tests which I should follow, and turn now to consider the application of the three tests to the original order granted 31st May 1989. (a) At that time were there serious issues raised to be tried? I do not propose to again review the contents of the affidavits filed by the plaintiffs, nor the submissions of plaintiffs’ counsel for I have already stated that this material convinced me that issues of trespassing upon private property, harassment of the public and interference with the operation of a public facility were clearly raised and, if not subsequently satisfactorily answered, gave an arguable cause of action to the plaintiffs. (b) Would the plaintiffs suffer irreparable harm if no order was granted? Insofar as the hospital was concerned it was offering a service to the public, and if members of the public were denied such service due to the clinic’s inability to operate as a result of sit-ins, or individuals were reluctant to attend at the clinic if they were to be subjected to harassment, then both the hospital, through the clinic, and the public could suffer irreparable harm. (c) Where did the balance of convenience lie in this situation? The argument between the opposing points of view on the abortion issue in the country has been raging for several years and will probably continue for the foreseeable future. The actions of picketing one building or a sit-in at one clinic will not by themselves resolve the issue, but they may certainly have a deleterious effect on other tenants of the building, the building owner and users of the clinic’s range of services. Within the limits set out in the order granted, which did not prohibit the defendants from putting forth their point of view near the building, I would hold that the balance of convenience in this particular situation favoured the plaintiffs’ position.