What is the test for an interlocutory injunction?

If it should be argued that, notwithstanding the absence of any authority for what the plaintiff now seeks to do, what it seeks is nevertheless an equitable remedy available to a landlord against an alleged overholding tenant, then certainly the requirements for the granting of a mandatory interlocutory injunction would have to be met. Those requirements include the necessity of the applicant making out a strong prima facie case to the right which it asserts; that is to say, showing that its right is reasonably clear: Pratt v. Scheveck, 1926 CanLII 133 (SK CA), [1926] 4 D.L.R. 1169, [1926] 3 W.W.R. 657, 21 S.L.R. 154. In this instance that means the plaintiff's right to have possession of its property returned to it. Aside from arguments advanced by the defendant to suggest that the right of the plaintiff is not reasonably clear, there are also other factors which sprinkle sufficient fog on the scene so as to prevent the reaching of a conclusion at this stage that the required clarity exists. Let me give one example.