If such a permanent injunction is granted after a trial, there is no reason why damages could not adequately compensate the Ramanands for the harm suffered prior to trial. I agree with the comments of Josephson J. in Palmer v. Burnaby (City), 2006 BCSC 165, 23 C.P.C. (6th) 185 at para. 45 (B.C.S.C.), that for the purposes of assessing irreparable harm on an interlocutory injunction, there is no reason in principle why a nuisance claim based on unreasonable noise could not be adequately remedied after a trial with damages. See also Slonski v. Pryor, 2002 SKQB 431, [2002] S.J. No. 659 at para. 21 (Q.B.) (QL).
"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.