Docket: CACV2266 Mattress Mattress Inc. Appellant - v. -, 2012 SKCA 100

THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2012 SKCA 100 Date: 2012-10-29 Between: Docket: CACV2266 Mattress Mattress Inc. Appellant - and - Mattress Mattress (Sask) Inc. Respondent Coram: Jackson, Ottenbreit and Caldwell JJ.A. Counsel: Matthew Park for the appellant Cory Furman for the respondent

Appeal: From: 2012 SKQB 159 Heard: October 29, 2012 Disposition: Appeal dismissed (orally) Written Reasons: October 30, 2012 By: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ottenbreit In Concurrence: The Honourable Madam Justice Jackson The Honourable Mr. Justice Caldwell Ottenbreit J.A. [ 1 ] This is an appeal by Mattress Mattress Inc. (the “appellant”) from the decision of the Chambers judge dismissing its application for an interlocutory injunction prohibiting Mattress Mattress (Sask) Inc. (the “respondent”) from continuing to use its registered and non- registered trade-marks and related names and logos in Saskatchewan.

The details of the decision can be found at 2012 SKQB 159 . [ 2 ] Whether or not to grant an interim injunction is a discretionary decision and the standard of appellate review is decidedly narrow (see: Culligan Canada Ltd. v. Fettes , 2009 SKCA 144 , [2010] 6 W.W.R. 420). [ 3 ] The analytical framework to be employed by a Chambers judge on an application for an interim injunction is set out in Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc. v. Mosaic Potash Esterhazy Limited Partnership , 2011 SKCA 120 , 341 D.L.R (4th) 407, with its tripartite test.

The Chambers judge correctly stated the law and applicable test and in my view, correctly applied the law to the facts which were before her in dismissing the application for an injunction. In short, we can find no error in the exercise of her discretion. [ 4 ] With respect to the legal effect of the clause mentioned in paragraph 26 of the Chambers judgment, i.e. the clause that damages are not an adequate remedy and that an injunction may follow, the effect of this is best left to the trial judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.